AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,840 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcraigcx /forum/post/16953037



Is there a list with all the options and associated gains, or do I just keep wading through all the threads?

Well......you could. Some do, and then of course we read comments about "bleeding eyes'....."I'm more confused than ever."......"I can't decide."


The Sticky Threads at the Top of the DIY Screens Forum Thread page can give you some assistance as to knowing what sort of DIY Screens are out there, but it is a general depiction, and not "fact specific".


As far as "facts", there have been some considerable efforts to obtain and present Gain and Munsel figures, but none of it is what could be construed as being "verified' or "Independently validated" by neutral outside sources. Granted, they "should" be closer to fact than fiction, but one cannot take such efforts absolutely for granted or blindly accept them. They can be very useful, but they are not definitive.


I say "Neutral" because we all have our preferences and beliefs as to what makes a DIY Screen as good as...or better than other Screen examples, be they Mfg. or DIY. Comments AND published test results are all driven by some degree by motives and preferences, and unless a totally uninvolved party, capable of, and accredited as being a independent Testing Source does such testing, and provides the data, there can be no real assurances that what is posted is either accurate, done properly, or unbiased. All such privately contributed data in and of itself can be considered only a "guide" by which to help one peruse through all the "eye bleeding" information.


So OK. I'd be remiss not to admit myself that my suggestions and referrals are based on my own everyday use of the DIY Screen applications I advocate and build myself, and that I help others to "Do them themselves" by virtue of contributing my time to this Forum. Beyond that, and the few times I do offer comparative "Visual' tests, I make no effort to test, nor provide no test "Data". To myself, and a great many others, the results both shown by me and experienced by others speak loudly enough.


Things do change however, and a great deal of the discord that has existed between the two camps, (...to publish tests or not...) has created an environment that detracts from the overall purpose behind DIY'ism. Too often has "testing" has served to be a justification by some to discount the "viability" of applications that do not have such data to back up what is being experienced "out of hand".


I personally do not think that any tests results I provide would be looked upon any differently should I present such as backing for any reputed claims, so instead I simply leave the "judgments" up to those who decide to give my suggestion a whirl. If that changes, it will because someone who is unilaterally unbiased does the testing. Sadly though, when that has happened, even then those who were adversely 'reviewed' took offense and discounted the results as well. 'Tis the nature of things these days, and I wish earnestly that it could be different.


By far, the majority of NOOB DIY'ers are aghast at the reams of published information they have to delve into, should they want to make an educated decision. So "most" simply want someone to "Tell Them" what they need. Still others would never make any decision without such information being available. They are fewer in number...but adamant in their requirements and beliefs.


Make no mistake that those who advocate "Tested Applications" are not at all pleased if someone ignores such efforts they've made to justify their suggestions, and who then opt in for a DIY application that stands on it's posted merits alone. Therein lies the true reason for much discord.


So it has to be up to you, the end user...to decide how much effort to expend. It's mostly impossible to check out claims and results between the varying applications by asking for "opinions on another application" from the proponents of a dissimilar application without getting dis-allowances or even abject dismissals of the asked about Screen application. Sometimes, things get far too "personal" and that is saddest of all. Even worse...some Posters do exactly that sort of thing just to watch opposing viewpoints surface and the Fur Fly.



In all such things, usually those who feel the need to disparage someone personally to convince another to use their own suggestions are people to avoid. Those who discount outright all other applications save the ones they advocate usually have an agenda, be it personal or professional...to adhere to. Those who offer up advice and follow through with any help that is requested are the ones who really have the best interests of the DIY'er in mind, not any desire of personal aggrandizement or promotion of their personal choices.


It's hard not to favor one application over another, especially if you believe strongly in that application's attributes. But all the same, if one is to provide "Sage advice", one must also educate themselves as to every possible aspect and criteria that exists on the "End User's" side of the equation, then offer up both their best suggestion, as well as at least a couple other viable alternatives. Screen Size and varying Room criteria can narrow down the playing field to 2-3 choices, or even just a single choice...but usually the latter becomes obvious enough few will interject an opposing viewpoint. When such happens you have to accept the advice given as being correct...or just take a chance and go with your own decision.


As for myself, yes, I "personally" feel my experience gives me an edge on most others that lack such (..and some do not feel that way as well...) , and my advice will often be represented by such feelings. But in the overall outlook, I'm interested in what works best for a DIY'er on EVERY count....and that is what I've always been interested in. And I'm not alone in this belief either. You can readily tell who else feels likewise simply by the tone and content of the posted replies...so use your own judgment....do whatever amount of research you need to do to feel comfortable with any decision you might make....and if in the end an answer still escapes you....just post up requesting a definitive answer and watch the Fur Fly.



OK...I used my response to your second question to make statement. I do that sometimes. OK. Quite often.


Quote:
Thanks MM. Something like? S-I-L-V-E-R?

In your case, with the Z3000 and a 13' throw, S-I-L-V-E-R would seem best so that you could maintain effective brightness. At full lamp output you'd get 18 fl, so at Low Lamp, most likely 14-15 fl. The Sanyo will deliver it's best Contrast at Low lamp, and do so without over use of it's aperture features


You'd have to spray it. And use either a extremely smooth wall surface, or a sizable substrate such a Wilson Art DW, or lastic Signage Sheeting. Some could say that Wilson Art DW alone would be adequate...and in fact it would perform effectively on Full Lamp (15 fl) and adequately on Low Lamp (12-13fl) But it would not give you an ounce of perceived Contrast boosting, nor provide any additional leeway for eventual Bulb degradation.


S-I-L-V-E-R is an exceptional DIY Screen application, one that you could be extremely happy with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan /forum/post/16953944


As far as "facts", there have been some considerable efforts to obtain and present Gain and Munsel figures, but none of it is what could be construed as being "verified' or "Independently validated" by neutral outside sources. Granted, they "should" be closer to fact than fiction, but one cannot take such efforts absolutely for granted or blindly accept them. They can be very useful, but they are not definitive.

This really needs to be addressed and resolved now.


The data is accurate and has been validated.

To start with the reason why calibrated spectrophotometers are used is so there is a standard and reference points. This way everyone with a calibrated spectrophotometer can take a reading of a material and each person can be assured they are looking at the same data information. If the information was different, it would defeat the purpose of having the units calibrated to the same specifications in the first place. Spectrophotometers are used in the textile industry throughout the world as well as many many other industries that deal with colors. This way everyone can know they are all talking about the same color value.


The spectrophotometers we use are all calibrated by XRite and the calibrations are all current. As far as Munsell values, I worked with the color science department at two universities to determine a neutral tolerance scale and they validated the neutral specs. In addition to that, everything else adheres to industry standards and specifications... so nothing is being made up here or spun. These are the same specs and standards everyone uses. This is also why a person can't use a scanner as a colorimeter or spectrophotometer. They simply are not accurate and a 'reading' would differ from one scanner to the next. Spectrophotometers are precision equipment built and calibrated so that readings are consistant from one unit to the next whether the person is in the same room or on the other side of the world.


Gain- Even the gain reading we did have been verified. We did more than just DIY gain readings, we did every commercial screen (material and paint) that we had access to. Now to really make things interesting and prove the readings are valid and accurate- One screen company that we've been working with to do testing and reviews provied a couple of prototype screens. Nobody had seen these screens yet and the company did not tell us what the color balance was or what the gain was. The reason was they wanted to see what readings we came up with and if they matched their readings. In other words we had a material we knew nothing about. Not surprisingly our gain and color value readings matched what the company had on record. They wanted to verify how accurate we were too and we passed their test.


Now what is truly interesting, is when you say "Granted, they "should" be closer to fact than fiction, but one cannot take such efforts absolutely for granted or blindly accept them."


I say interesting because you have quoted gain values for your screens and stated them as fact and accurate when they were nothing more than holding up a sample of another screen material and 'by eye' saying 'yep, they look the same!' It is interesting that you want people to blindly accept that as fact yet question those of us that actually use the same equipment and testing methods that everyone in the industry uses.


No offense MM, but when it comes to accurate and facts, I'll trust the readings of a spectro to determine whether something is neutral over some's 'eye' every time. No matter how good a person's eyes are, nobody has eyes as good as a calibrated spectrophotometer, and everyone sees things slightly different. So what one person may 'see' as gray may not look gray at all to someone else. When you take a reading, then there is no doubt about the color value.


This wasn't meant to be confrontational. It's just that you made some assertations and presented them as absolutes and I just wanted to provide the other side of things. You say our data and science isn't valid and hasn't been validated, but you really don't know how things were done... in other words you're making some assumptions on your part. This is exactly why there are standards and why even DIY could benefit by following the same standards as the rest of the industry and color science world uses.
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,840 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbassett /forum/post/16955277


This really needs to be addressed and resolved now.

.....and you could address it on a separate thread instead of making the OPs thread be laden with such. My statements were made without mentioning any singular person or application, your reply serves to narrow that down and give credence and support to a specific group.


Let this be the last such exchange.....


You've read by now what I posted in response, and I've removed it so as to keep the OPs thread clean of such "back & forth'.


Please do likewise with your comments and if you feel the need, post them under a new thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
As OP, I appreciate both of your responses and have seen similar in other threads. Cleary you both have invested tons of time and energy into this topic and it is much appreciated by those of us (me!) who don't have quite the same passion as you guys. I'm confident the right solution is out there... I'm less confident that I'm going to happen upon in by myself, given the field of information is so vast. I appreciate the help narrowing down the options.


WB - what DIY solution would be recommended from your camp?


Thanks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,093 Posts
Please carry on with the conversation... One quick note: I believe MM maintains that the tests of his mixes were conducted on samples that may not have been properly mixed.


Thanks,

Garry

AVS Moderator
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,840 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 /forum/post/16957441


Please carry on with the conversation... One quick note: I believe MM maintains that the tests of his mixes were conducted on samples that may not have been properly mixed.


Thanks,

Garry

AVS Moderator

With that qualifying statement, I'll add some clarification.


I stand by my comments I made to jcraigcx because they brought two important things to bear.


1. My issue was with results made from examples that were themselves made without the benefit of anyone else really knowing how they were made. Yes...I expect to hear the same old cry of "he refutes it by questioning some aspect of the Job....." but the fact is, the ONLY times, and there have been only a few...., that I've refuted anybody's posted results or....in this case....test data, is because of this exact same circumstance. And in the case of the purported data posted, it was admitted that there were deviations from the build, but the best was done under the circumstances. Nor was the Paint mix formula used current.


2. The Person directly responsible (..it was no team effort....it was one person's personal effort...) for the posted Tests has personal issues and problems dealing with anyone who won't allow him his way, or accept his ideas and sacred. He's not here to defend his position because he cannot be because of the consequences of his own actions. This then is who I should consider as being capable of a unbiased reporting of facts and figures collected by him?


That's not very reassuring that one is seeing "valid" results.


At that conjecture, personal beliefs intrude, such as the thought that in no manner would the posting of positive revealing results be posted. There was only One person doing the making of the DIY Panels....and performing the tests....not a bank of individuals. And that "One" by his own actions before then, and through continued example and recent statements, consistently has shown how his ......................aahhhh well, this is not even the issue of this Thread.


I haven't mentioned a name yet nor will I give that opportunity out for criticism. I have not been afforded that same respect...quite the contrary.

Beside it's not necessary, thanks to a conspicuous effort included in every posted response, it's been made clear enough.


Speaking of posts, somehow, Bill has managed once again to interject 5 times more meaning into my statements than I intended, and then use those overstatements as quotes, trying to put me off as someone who refuses to accept proven scientific procedures and/or results from calibrated instruments. Then he uses it as justification for talking about the "Crew...the "Us"...the People who Shall Not be Named". You know......, The Bug People.


So aptly named.


For the record, none of the above stated things are true, nor do I hold to it as being how I think or feel. But it must be pointed out that there is no calender provided, and a few things ate bit askew to what Bill has provided


Those Mfg samples.....they are recent...as in just last few weeks. The tested SF examples? Questionable of origin. The tests done on them? Several (...as in many...) months old at least.


Add the "personal" stuff into it, and yes...you bet there's a "question". So there is the reason behind the more oblique remarks I made. I did not rant...I stated my opinion and beliefs. But it was then ventured from the left that "things had to be settled. Once and for all". And they were. They show there exists a separate, and hostile faction...and schism as it were, of former AVS'ers who have at first disdained this forum as a place to share, left 9..or were sent off...) then returned (...those who could....) to blatenly advertise their own Forum, and promote their own "Brand". Yes, they use the flail of Science to justify their demeanor, but all that Science hasn't given them any advantage that others didn't already possess intuitively, nor create any applications that exhibited anything that hadn't predated each instance...and done as well or better.


But you sure wouldn't know it by the way every post of Bill's touts all the accomplishments...all the uses....all the countries......* As I said, the use of this Forum to support another Forum by individuals who would rather not give this Forum the benefit of their real efforts, because they would have to share a spotlight, and play nice.

* I could list so many such examples of my own, both past and current, it would be the longest post of my tenure on AVS. And my last. But I've kept it all to myself because it has nothing to do with helping DIY'ers. To that effect, there has been much baiting to try to make me try to use it, by ALL those involved, so that too has also left me skeptical of motives. I've never hid who I am and what I do, or how well I can do it, but I also have never as blatantly been guilty of promoting myself or my applications to the detriment of others or this Forum.


But I've been accused of such, as well as other unjustified things, by all the same parties Bill represents. (...there are only a few...but they do go on and on and on....) And the most guilty party of all is the person who wants to hold up his negative Test results of an application that has consistently whipped the pants off everything else as being both accurate and sacred from questioning? The Pot is calling the Kettle Black. I'm not the Pot.


That was tried before...and for much the same motives and "personal' reasons. It didn't float back then...and that ship re-raised is still a doomed ship.


That is the reason this thread got started. A Misbegotten reason. One that doesn't really makes sense to me, or anybody who advocates helping others, not pursuing (trolling?) grudges and mean spirited behavior, twisting words and denigrating individuals. And then putting in a Plug for themselves and their applications as well, so as to do their level best to redirect attention from one forum to another.


As to the subject of this thread...you cannot get any arguement out of me.

Once again...for the record, I believe Testing DIY has it's place. Done with a unbiased thoughtfulness and a less promotion-ally minded effort, I would welcome any such occurrence and the resulting data. Just don't expect me to do it....I'm too busy. If it's done otherwise, that too has a place...and that's right where it can get stuck.
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,840 Posts
Bill,


I'm sorry you had to insert yourself into this. You might not consider yourself as being in any "Camp", but you sit too close to the Campfire to be objective. So you leave yourself open to getting your Weenie roasted just like others do as a result.



Try using a longer stick and distance yourself from the fire. And cook Marshmallows and make Smores.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan /forum/post/16957353


.....and you could address it on a separate thread instead of making the OPs thread be laden with such. My statements were made without mentioning any singular person or application, your reply serves to narrow that down and give credence and support to a specific group.


Let this be the last such exchange.....


You've read by now what I posted in response, and I've removed it so as to keep the OPs thread clean of such "back & forth'.


Please do likewise with your comments and if you feel the need, post them under a new thread.

Maurice you really do assume too much!


No I have not read what you posted before you removed it, but I can guess what the tone and content was.


As far as the 'exchange', you have to keep in mind YOU keep bringing this up and making the accusations. All I did was provide a counter point to what you were saying and stating as facts yourself.


I stand by my reply. The data and readings in question are valid and have been validated. Unless you are saying multiple people in different countries all using calibrated spectrophotometers are all in error. I suppose that could be, but are we really going to start saying everyone is wrong? It's bad enough that mixes keep changing, which causes a moving target. I do have to ask something though, why do you keep changing the mix anyway, and how can each time it's changed now be 'the best'? Wasn't last year's version the 'best'? Should people that used previous mixes change screens now because there is a new 'best'? It really is a valid question that even relates to this topic and I'll explain...


If you had a neutral mix, why change it other than looking for a lighter or darker shade? I can see changing the reflective value, but not the color balance. Without a data reading though, it is impossible to tell if you're neutral or not.


I hear and read all these posts about having a good eye, but as good of an eye as humanly possible still won't be accurate and as stated everyone sees things slightly different than everyone else. This is why I advocate a neutral screen, it takes the screen out of the equation and lets the user adjust the image at the projector.


This is going to sound like a mind blower coming from me, but as long as a screen is relatively close to D65 it will still be a good screen. The thing is though it has to be close, it can't be traveling way down by D75 like older versions of SF were tracking. Multiple screens made by different people all exhibited the same traits, which was a rather noticeable blue push.


Now I do realize that you changed the formula, and no this one hasn't been tested yet. I really do wish you guys would take some readings though, this way we all would at least know where things fall. If we take a reading, well unless it ends up being neutral you'll just contest it, so why bother?


Seriously though, I do wonder how many times someone on here has developed a great screen only to continue adding this, and tweaking that- until they mess the whole thing up and no longer even know what they did when it was working. Without any data or references, it's all a crap shoot.


Really all this comes into play when it comes to someone wanting to be the King of the Hill and those that want to make claims of 'THE BEST'. If someone makes the claim, then back it up. Empirical data is fine to a point, and I've done and shown just as much empirical data and screenies as the next guy... but people really need a bit more than just eye candy that everyone has agreed is subjective at best.


If someone wants to say 'best', then everything should be evaluated. Not every DIY developer on here or the web is in it for that reason, but it can't be denied that some people are.


Let me ask you something. And let's take things we've developed out of the equation for a minute. Say two screens are being compared, and yes two that are similar in characteristics, not a white screen and a gray screen.


Let's say both screens provide a great image, how would you rate each screen and ultimately determine which one was 'best'?


I'll go first


Okay, first of all, if they both look the same and have a great image, then they both are excellent screens, right? What if both parties insist theirs is the "best"?


I'd start looking at a wide variety of content, mainly to see if there are any changes from dark to light, does either show signs of hot spotting or blooming? Are colors vibrant or are they actually bleeding?


Color balance is also important, so I'd be looking at that. To be fair, even if one screen is dead bang neutral for D65, if it hot spots I wouldn't rate it very high.


Then I look at construction and price. How hard is it to make? Is it something anyone can easily reproduce? If it is complex, are all the steps really necessary or is it complex just for the sake of being complex?


Again my point here is when someone wants to call something 'the best'. That's perfectly fine too, nothing wrong with wanting to be the best, but people really should be ready to back things up and stand behind them. To me backing things up isn't just 'Because I said so... neener neener neener!' If someone wants the title and makes the claim, then prove it. Anyone can 'say so'. I can say Designer White is the best white screen available... I can say Black Widow is the best dark gray screen... like I said, anyone can say anything they want. Hell they can even post tons and tons of incredible screenies too.. and even have tons of people rave... That's all great, but again... all that can still be pretty subjective.


Throw in hard data along with everything above and it starts to become a pretty compelling package.


Here's my last comment for now about data. Anyone can search things I present and one thing will become very clear... they haven't changed. I recommend the same OTS neutral grays now as I did two years ago, why? They are still dead neutral. Laminate screens are still virtually indestructible and make for some of the best single substrate screens around... and Black Widow is still the same formula it was when it was first presented. The reason is because readings were taken when these methods were being researched. Things that worked were put through more testing and readings, things that didn't work were discarded. When something was presented, there was no reason to change it down the road. Without knowing what the color balance really was, then yeah I'd probably still be tweaking and adjusting things to this day.


As far as the thread goes, are published gain and color specs accurate? Yes they are. Multiple people are getting the same values and they are all using equipment certified by XRite and testing to ISF and industry standards. If people were using a multi-purpose printer/scanner and PhotoShop and trying to say they are comparing colors that way, then I'd have to say no we can't use that information as valid because it can't be reproduced. By using precision equipment like spectrophotometer's that are factory certified and calibrated, the readings can be reproduced consistently from one person to the next no matter if the people are in different countries.


I don't think it gets much more reliable and accurate than that... unless it's being suggested that people are lying, and I know nobody is suggesting that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 /forum/post/16957441


Please carry on with the conversation... One quick note: I believe MM maintains that the tests of his mixes were conducted on samples that may not have been properly mixed.


Thanks,

Garry

AVS Moderator

My question to that would be what would we have to gain by intentionally mixing it wrong? Besides, it wasn't just one screen, it was multiple screen samples from other people that were making SF screens. At the time, they all exhibited the same characteristics. To me that indicates it was mixed right, seeing everyone's screens were coming out the same.


But to blatantly screw something up just to make it look bad? What would that have proved? Especially if MM went ahead and had someone else run some tests and they showed completely different values, and then ultimately it was proved we intentionally made his formula wrong. That pretty much would ruin my reputation and why would anyone ever listen to any advice I tried to give? It doesn't make sense to be that sinister and devious. Anyone that is always ends up getting caught.


I will agree with him that what we tested is now an older mix (not four years old like he said though, it was the mix from around a year and a half ago). At the time though it was being said to 'be the best' just as this newest formula is now 'the best'!



Garry, perfect example of what I was saying... Maurice always seems to be the one that is throwing out the accusations, and I just responded. He's allowed to make an accusation, then I should be able to respond. He has to go to name calling though, and did already in this thread. Maybe he thinks it's 'cute' and 'friendly', but I seriously doubt it. It's to evoke a reaction.


So far this thread has really gone way off track and is more mud slinging than anything.


Can I ask something and make a request?

If I understand things right, Maurice is suggesting data that has been presented is tainted and possibly done so intentionally.


Can he provide any proof of his accusations? I mean they are pretty damning.
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,840 Posts
Crimeny! You can go on and on and repeat the same old things, just to see them all in print again. More than I ever did...really.


You make it sound so cohesive...but it's not nearly so...nor as widely spread and as accepted as you hype it out to be. Give it a rest.


Everything in the preceeding Post to you one above I'm referring to is all fine and good if the someone you refer to has been touting their application as being the best...the King of the Hill.


Other than a recent statement made during this exchange alluding to beating the pants off some notable DIY apps, where have I ever made such claims? care to point them out? If your going to use them to justify your comments, then "quote" them or do not use them at all. They are attributed to me by you and others, but they are both misconceived and erroneous. And convenient to conjure up to prove non existent points. It has NOT been me promoting myself or Silver Fire, or anything else. But you know who has been doing the exact same thing themselves. More than a little conspicuously and for a long while, and with the enlisted support of a few dissociated AVS members, you/they have innundated Forums everywhere with the effort. Yet your entire post points a finger at me...me alone as being guilty of such crimes and misdemeanors. We'll that's a buncha crap..all that, because if I had been doing that as you suggest in no uncertain terms, EVERYONE would know it and agree with you.


And nothing you said addresses so many of the other things I mentioned. Too touchy, all that. No. It's all about me...always has been for a select few.


I really think you like to do this so you can compete for honors at posting long meaningless missives. Well that's fine then. Takes the pressure off me for a while.



PS. That Post WAS sent out to you via Post notification. Don't suppose to me that you can suddenly appear like magic 10 minutes after I post without your being on top of the threads you want to monitor via notifications. Your simply too "Johnny on the spot" for that to wash. 'Cmon...neither I nor the other readers are that gullible. In any event, it said what needed to be said, in response to your post, and didn't need to be exhibited any longer than that.


As I said, your now arguing a moot point. One that has no reason for pursuit except to suit the one who wishes to pursue it.


And WB....lets not talk about people making "Damning" remarks about anyone or anything. It's not going to go where you'd want it to go.


I didn't say anything other than he admitted to not doing it as it was exactly stated to be done.


And whats this all of a sudden marlarky about his receiving SF samples from all over or that several people have done the measurements themselves. How many is several? 2? I know his timeline and when he first posted the tests. This is the very first time you've brought this up...and frankly, i do NOt believe it's worth dwelling on further.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts
Again you really do assume...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan /forum/post/0


PS. That Post WAS sent out to you via Post notification. Don't suppose to me that you can suddenly appear like magic 10 minutes after I post without your being on top of the threads you want to monitor via notifications. Your simply too "Johnny on the spot" for that to wash. 'Cmon...neither I nor the other readers are that gullible. In any event, it said what needed to be said, in response to your post, and didn't need to be exhibited any longer than that.

You're assuming I get email notifications. I don't have that option enabled.


Hey... if you make a comment, claim, or accusation, don't get upset when someone responds and provides another point of view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan /forum/post/16958434


And WB....lets not talk about people making "Damning" remarks about anyone or anything. It's not going to go where you'd want it to go.

If you have something to say... say it. Just back it up and don't make something up. You're accusing me and I want to hear your proof.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts
Garry just close this thread, it's not going to resolve anything. I offered up why the data is valid, and it's turning into a flame session.


Seems like the only thing that would resolve this is a steel cage match between MM and me!
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,840 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbassett

If you have something to say... say it. Just back it up and don't make something up. You're accusing me and I want to hear your proof.

Just so you know, I know you know who I'm referring to, as well as the instance involved. And it's not an isolated occurrence, but a continual thing over yonder. Besides, where did I didn't say anything about "you", just that the subject wouldn't be a pleasant one if you pursued it. I won't even go there anyway...my point has been made to the only person it needed to be addressed to. Don't redirect my intent toward you any more than is deserving...your really not much deserving of it beyond your effort to misquote and misrepresent my remarks and motives. They are pale indeed beside the things I've read elsewhere. I'm really being as polite about it all as possible. You try too...but you revert back to being accusatory yourself far easier and more often than I do.


You have to bear the brunt of criticism brought on by the actions and behavior of others....and it's all because you continue to post things attributed to me, but never said, in the defense of others who create the problems you have to look after by their own actions. Actions that would seem wholly unnecessary if their position in things was a secure as is made out to be.


Yes...I'd want the thread closed too under those circumstances.
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,840 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbassett /forum/post/16958451


Garry just close this thread, it's not going to resolve anything. I offered up why the data is valid, and it's turning into a flame session.

Last note before bed.



As I recall the thread is about determining as to if Accurately done Tests resulting in posted specs of DIY applications could be considered valid. I stated of course...under most all circumstances.


But not all.


You didn't do the tests, Bill. and no one has said you were/are responsible for the posted results. Your just backing them up effusively with your own comments. If your reputation could take a hit by being associated with someone else, it's guilt only by association, not any actual wrongdoing or such. Will people discount you for that? They haven't done so before...and you've made some wrong choices already. I don't think anything you've done so far can be the result of people discounting you altogether. Question your thinking perhaps...but I'm right there along side you as far as that goes.


Stop acting so wounded when your merely placing yourself too close to the muzzle and getting an earful for your trouble.


G'nite.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,093 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbassett /forum/post/0


Can I ask something and make a request?

If I understand things right, Maurice is suggesting data that has been presented is tainted and possibly done so intentionally.


Can he provide any proof of his accusations? I mean they are pretty damning.

I'll rise to this challenge. And unlike MM, I'm going to name names. The following numbers for Silver Fire come from this source , and I believe these are the numbers to which Bill refers when he mentions "multiple people in different countries":

Silver Fire - mech

RGB 170 172 182

Lab 70.9 0.49 -4.76

Silver Fire - Harpmaker

181 184 187

Lab 74.5 -0.3 -1.85

Silver Fire - zductive

185 187 184

Lab 75.6 -0.89 0.96


Converting these numbers to color temperature using the Lindbloom CIE Color Calculator gives us these results:

mech
7207°

Harpmaker
6788°

zductive
6449°


Unless I am mistaken, two of these results are well within Bill's criteria for acceptable neutrality. But one deviates rather drastically from neutral, and coincidentally it is from the "one person" MM alludes to.


Personally, I find these test results rather telling, if not altogether suspicious. No dates are given for the data, and I have no idea what formula was used. But it was clearly successful for two of the three testers.


Another test was begun on 7/14/09 (by the same tester) using the current Liquitex version of SF. Figures were published for the color component only, which is obviously not neutral by itself, nor is it intended to be. No testing of the complete mix has been published to date, and considering the following quote, I doubt it will be:

"Anyone looking for a shortcut to the color component could go to Lowes and have them mix you up a sample pint of PPG 520-7, NCS 8005-Y50R, or Ben Moore Black Bean 2130-10. These are close. Keep in mind that in trying out Silver Fire, all you're ever going to get is close. Close to what? With measurements of thick artist paints down to the ml, I can guarantee you that we could spectro 50 different samples and get 50 different results."


Here, the tester advocates substituting different ingredients (since, in his opinion "all you're ever going to get is close"), then admits his own inability to properly mix the correct ingredients!

Is this your idea of an objective test?


Garry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,564 Posts
it would seem to me that if you wanted to post fair results... you'd ask for a little bit of assistance and try to get the mix correct... as others have done.


ZEDUCTIVE for his part (which i commend), asked for assistance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,694 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 /forum/post/16958706


"Anyone looking for a shortcut to the color component could go to Lowes and have them mix you up a sample pint of PPG 520-7, NCS 8005-Y50R, or Ben Moore Black Bean 2130-10. These are close. Keep in mind that in trying out Silver Fire, all you're ever going to get is close. Close to what? With measurements of thick artist paints down to the ml, I can guarantee you that we could spectro 50 different samples and get 50 different results."


Here, the tester advocates substituting different ingredients (since, in his opinion "all you're ever going to get is close"), then admits his own inability to properly mix the correct ingredients!

Is this your idea of an objective test?


Garry

I interpret that post a little differently than you Garry. I read that to say that the paint store can mix "a colorant" accurately by machine every time, eliminating possible human error. Using this paint store colorant, a more consistent mix "like" silverfire could be made, and would presumably be neutral and perform the same (or maybe even better). This would not "technically" be Silverfire. I don't think the intention was to say that it would be Silverfire if made this way. It wasn't my post, so I can't state for fact what was meant. Whoever posted that should claim it is a new mix and call it "Superfire" or something.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,093 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbgl /forum/post/16960058


I interpret that post a little differently than you Garry. I read that to say that the paint store can mix "a colorant" accurately by machine every time, eliminating possible human error. Using this paint store colorant, a more consistent mix "like" silverfire could be made, and would presumably be neutral and perform the same (or maybe even better). This would not "technically" be Silverfire. I don't think the intention was to say that it would be Silverfire if made this way. It wasn't my post, so I can't state for fact what was meant. Whoever posted that should claim it is a new mix and call it "Superfire" or something.

Perhaps it would help to establish a context. The thread in question begins with this statement:


"This will be discussion/measurements of the new silver fire formula - the one that uses Liquitex Basics paint for the color components."



Here is the actual quote:




Now, here's the ingredients of Silver Fire:
(base components)

30 oz. Delta Ceramcoat Pearl #02601

15 oz. Delta Ceramcoat Silver Metallic #02603

10 oz. Behr Interior UPW Flat #1850 (or Exterior #4050)

6 oz. Folk Art - Champagne Metallic


(viscosity components)

24 oz. Minwax Polycrylic - Satin Finish @Michaels & Home Depot

16 oz. Distilled or Filtered water


(color components)

50 ml water to rinse the color pigments from the measuring utensils.

20 ml - Liquitex Basics - Naphthol Crimson - (PR170)

8 ml - Liquitex Basics - Phthalocyanine Green - (PG7)

5 ml - Liquitex Basics - Phthalocyanine Blue

5 ml - Liquitex Basics - Cadmium Yellow Deep Hue (PY 83)


After mixing only five of the eleven ingredients, this individual opts to test this partial mix, and publish the results. Of what possible use are these results? Then, before even attempting to complete the mix, he suggests substitutions for these five ingredients, claiming that accurate measurement of Liquitex paints is impossible. This may be true within his ability, but I can assure you that such measurement is easily accomplished.


He goes on to state:

"So save yourself the time money and effort and get the sample pint from Lowes. It's a satin but I highly doubt that would matter with Silver Fire as it's prone to hot spotting anyways with all of the mica and polyurethane in it."


With this incredibly biased statement, one can assume that the test is now over, at least for this "tester". I'm sorry, but I for one refuse to accept any results from this source.


Garry
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top