AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Happy Easter Guys,

I am lucky enough to be moving house soon so will be building my dedicated theater YAY
I will be using an Emotiva RMC-1 and going 9.2.6, I have 1xEmotiva 11 chanel and 4 channel XPA to drive everthing.
Up front I will be using boxed M&K S150 Not the latest but very good non the less. 6 x PSB Surrounds, 6 x B&W CM665 in the ceiling and a pair of 15" Monoliths to give it some punch. PJ is a Optoma UHD 65 providing the visuals
The room is 17' x 12' and I want to squeeze in a 140" 16:9 which I am going to build a vertical electronic screen masking system.

The only thing I have not decided is whether to go with an AT screen and fit the M&K's into the wall behind or have a slightly smaller screen and go L & R and just below the screen.

Are the benefits of the AT screen worth what the extra cost would be as well as the cons of having a woven or perforated screen ????

There must be lots of you that have been in this situation and gone down the route of the AT screen - what were your thoughts after - was it worth it ? - if so why was it - if not why ?

Does anyone have any tried and tested materials for a good screen ? I am in the UK so will need to get it here, I will have total light control but I would still like a nice bright image

Any help would be very much appreciated
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,471 Posts
Straight up, you biggest detriment is the UHD65. Only 2200 "Weak in the knees" Lumen output, low for any 140 " screen, let alone a lower gain AT Screen of that size.

The gains to be had....wider / bigger screen for all Formats, ideally positioned Center Channel, and hidden R&L Mains and Sub....it's all good,as they say.

In your situation, an Acoustically Transparent screen is an ideal choice....one well worth the effort and applied expense. Which in truth is not that much. The savings you'd realize off constructing a AT Screen Wall could be applied to whatever you can dump that Optoma for. And spend on a Epson EH-TW9400W

The difference in image quality between the "O" and the "E" (Brightness & Contrast) will verge on the exponential.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Straight up, you biggest detriment is the UHD65. Only 2200 "Weak in the knees" Lumen output, low for any 140 " screen, let alone a lower gain AT Screen of that size.

The gains to be had....wider / bigger screen for all Formats, ideally positioned Center Channel, and hidden R&L Mains and Sub....it's all good,as they say.

In your situation, an Acoustically Transparent screen is an ideal choice....one well worth the effort and applied expense. Which in truth is not that much. The savings you'd realize off constructing a AT Screen Wall could be applied to whatever you can dump that Optoma for. And spend on a Epson EH-TW9400W

The difference in image quality between the "O" and the "E" (Brightness & Contrast) will verge on the exponential.
Thank you for your reply but are the extra 400 lumen's going to make that much difference ? it will of course make a difference but is it huge ? - I am not questioning it I am asking will it

You say the brightness and contrast will verge on exponential, the brightness I understand but contrast can you elaborate on as they both have contrast ratios of 1,200,000:1 so are the same, the only other determinable difference is the DLP chip vs LCD

Believe me if the perceivable difference is that big I would swap them out but I spent a lot of time reviewing both of these projectors and in the end IMHO it came out the the Optoma had a better image and colour saturation, having said that there are and will be a lot of people who state the Epsom is the better - that is as subjective Pepsi or Coke but the brightness difference you can't ague with but is it worth swapping them out for the extra 18% light when I have full control of ambient lighting ? all comments are very welcome - I am asking as I am spending as much as I can afford to get this as good as possible and if the sound is premo I don't want to let it down with the picture - that said at some point I would likely upgrade the PJ to the best I can afford when I recover from the HT build
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,471 Posts
Thank you for your reply but are the extra 400 lumen's going to make that much difference ? it will of course make a difference but is it huge ? - I am not questioning it I am asking will it
Experience with both units easily shows the Epson's ratings as being conservative and the Optoma's Mfg Lumen overstated by quite a big margin. Examples:

The Epson placed at 15'-2" from 0.7 gain Dual Layer Spandex Screen garners 27 fl of reflected brightness.(Calibrated "Color Brightness" spec.)
The Optoma placed at 15'-2" from 0.7 gain Dual Layer Spandex Screen garners 17 fl of reflected brightness. (Calibrated "Color Brightness" spec.)
(...the Epson can manage better than 17 fl on Eco mode....and if you Game, the "O's" .79ms Input Lag is atrocious)

Now what part of exponential is so hard to understand? ;)

You say the brightness and contrast will verge on exponential, the brightness I understand but contrast can you elaborate on as they both have contrast ratios of 1,200,000:1 so are the same, the only other determinable difference is the DLP chip vs LCD
There is a lot more than the above to consider than you realize.

Actually, the DLP chip does not render nearly the contrast performance that the LCD chips do because of the Epson's superior Lensing and light processing.To get the color it does the Optoma must shine a 6 element (RGBRGB) Color Wheel through a DLP Chip. Not very efficent. The Epson uses 3 R-G-B Panels. That is much more efficient,,,and no chance of Rainbow artifacts. And when considering as well that the Epson delivers it's Contrast levels at appreciably brighter Lumen output.....well there's that 'ol exponential difference for ya.

And off-the-screen foot lambert is absolutely critical as far as rendering exceptional HDR performance. Then there is operating costs to consider. The Epson replacement Lamps are well under 1/2 as expensive as the Optoma's

.Believe me if the perceivable difference is that big I would swap them out but I spent a lot of time reviewing both of these projectors and in the end IMHO it came out the the Optoma had a better image and colour saturation, having said that there are and will be a lot of people who state the Epsom is the better - that is as subjective Pepsi or Coke but the brightness difference you can't ague with but is it worth swapping them out for the extra 18% light when I have full control of ambient lighting ? all comments are very welcome - I am asking as I am spending as much as I can afford to get this as good as possible and if the sound is premo I don't want to let it down with the picture - that said at some point I would likely upgrade the PJ to the best I can afford when I recover from the HT build
I am not privy to what exact viewing conditions your perception is / was based upon. Certainly DLPs look great in a fully light controlled setting....but that is not the only benchmark for consideration.

Change now....or find out the hard way......but know this much, I only want to see you be happy with your end results.

Here is the truth of it.....I build Theaters as a living....and the image is a huge part of it considering every Screen I install is custom made. Very few are Spandex...or anything "AT" for that matter, but all are almost undoubtedly larger than average, and being based upon ALR standards are far darker in surface reflection than the average 1.0 - 1.2 gain Mfg screen. So I have a lot of experience (20 yrs+) in the actual real world as far as judging what / which Projectors actually deliver on thier performance specifications. Add to that my responsibility as far as advising so many DIY'ers across the Planet with so many depending upon my evaluation of their circumstances and yes...I feel absolutely confident in my recommendations.

It is up to you to adjudge your confidence level.

All AT screens worthy of consideration at almost without exception rated under 1.0 gain so lumen output as pertains to the screen's reflectivity quotient is critical for a dynamic image. Spandex screens actually assist in improving perceived contrast levels....and the LCD panels will deliver a sharper, more detailed image than the DLP chip.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Experience with both units easily shows the Epson's ratings as being conservative and the Optoma's Mfg Lumen overstated by quite a big margin. Examples:

The Epson placed at 15'-2" from 0.7 gain Dual Layer Spandex Screen garners 27 fl of reflected brightness.(Calibrated "Color Brightness" spec.)
The Optoma placed at 15'-2" from 0.7 gain Dual Layer Spandex Screen garners 17 fl of reflected brightness. (Calibrated "Color Brightness" spec.)
(...the Epson can manage better than 17 fl on Eco mode....and if you Game, the "O's" .79ms Input Lag is atrocious)

Now what part of exponential is so hard to understand? ;)



There is a lot more than the above to consider than you realize.

Actually, the DLP chip does not render nearly the contrast performance that the LCD chips do because of the Epson's superior Lensing and light processing.To get the color it does the Optoma must shine a 6 element (RGBRGB) Color Wheel through a DLP Chip. Not very efficent. The Epson uses 3 R-G-B Panels. That is much more efficient,,,and no chance of Rainbow artifacts. And when considering as well that the Epson delivers it's Contrast levels at appreciably brighter Lumen output.....well there's that 'ol exponential difference for ya.

And off-the-screen foot lambert is absolutely critical as far as rendering exceptional HDR performance. Then there is operating costs to consider. The Epson replacement Lamps are well under 1/2 as expensive as the Optoma's



I am not privy to what exact viewing conditions your perception is / was based upon. Certainly DLPs look great in a fully light controlled setting....but that is not the only benchmark for consideration.

Change now....or find out the hard way......but know this much, I only want to see you be happy with your end results.

Here is the truth of it.....I build Theaters as a living....and the image is a huge part of it considering every Screen I install is custom made. Very few are Spandex...or anything "AT" for that matter, but all are almost undoubtedly larger than average, and being based upon ALR standards are far darker in surface reflection than the average 1.0 - 1.2 gain Mfg screen. So I have a lot of experience (20 yrs+) in the actual real world as far as judging what / which Projectors actually deliver on thier performance specifications. Add to that my responsibility as far as advising so many DIY'ers across the Planet with so many depending upon my evaluation of their circumstances and yes...I feel absolutely confident in my recommendations.

It is up to you to adjudge your confidence level.

All AT screens worthy of consideration at almost without exception rated under 1.0 gain so lumen output as pertains to the screen's reflectivity quotient is critical for a dynamic image. Spandex screens actually assist in improving perceived contrast levels....and the LCD panels will deliver a sharper, more detailed image than the DLP chip.
Thank you for the detailed explanation - that is exactly why I asked - whats the point in asking if you don't listen to the answers you are given :sneaky:
So 2 more questions if I may - If I am going to upgrade/change my PJ I was thinking about going for a laser which would certainly help with the brightness and for a little more than the price of the EH-TW9400 I can get a UHZ65 (I'm not bias to the Optoma it just looks like a decent laser PJ for the price)
Would you go with EH-TW9400 or spend a little more and go laser??

Lastley I was looking at Elite Screens AcousticPro UHD Material which looks a fair price for a DIY screen but not sure how good it is
Or Would you go Spandex on a 140" DIY

Thank you for taking the time to reply I do appreciate it (y)
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,471 Posts
Thank you for the detailed explanation - that is exactly why I asked - whats the point in asking if you don't listen to the answers you are given :sneaky:
So 2 more questions if I may - If I am going to upgrade/change my PJ I was thinking about going for a laser which would certainly help with the brightness and for a little more than the price of the EH-TW9400 I can get a UHZ65 (I'm not bias to the Optoma it just looks like a decent laser PJ for the price)
Would you go with EH-TW9400 or spend a little more and go laser??
Just a little more? Several 1000s I'd think. The UHZ65 is nice...but it only sports a 4 Seg. Color Wheel (Rainbows?) , is 30 db "loud", and only has Vertical Lens shift so placement will need to be a bit more precise. In it's favor is more than sufficient brightness, increased Contrast, Native 4Kresolution, 3D capable (...a rarity with 4K units) and you'll never have to replace the Laser Engine (...unless it fails....)

Get it for just a little more? Yeah. A LOT more....stick with the Epson.

Lastly I was looking at Elite Screens AcousticPro UHD Material which looks a fair price for a DIY screen but not sure how good it is
Or Would you go Spandex on a 140" DIY

Thank you for taking the time to reply I do appreciate it (y)
Your proposed viewing distance make having as smooth and featureless a screen surface as possible necessary. The Spandex trounces the Elite AP-UHD material in that regard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Actually I can get the Epson EH-TW9400 for £2,500 ($3,460) and the Optoma UHZ65 for £3,199 ($4,400) so that's just £600 ($830) more from the same store"Richer Sounds" in the UK both with 6 years warranty so yeah not much more at all - Optoma UHZ65 (Black)

So given its only $800 more which would you choose now ?

So can I use any white spandex or is there a special weave I need, does it need to be backed with a black liner at all
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
I'd go for AT whenever possible. The main advantage is to have identical LCR on the same vertical plane. Under the screen center channel speakers is a big compromise in SQ because of the positioning and design (horizontal mtm, not an issue in your case). Keep in mind that you still want your L and R speakers to flank the screen for optimal soundstage. So there maybe no benefit in terms of projectable screen size.
People often put all 3 front speakers behind the screen but it is a compromised solution because L and R speakers are too close together. I know because I was stupid enough to do this.
As far as picture quality I do not think you will be disappointed with any of the popular fabrics in 0.8 to 1 gain range.
Good luck with the build.
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,471 Posts
Actually I can get the Epson EH-TW9400 for £2,500 ($3,460) and the Optoma UHZ65 for £3,199 ($4,400) so that's just £600 ($830) more from the same store"Richer Sounds" in the UK both with 6 years warranty so yeah not much more at all - Optoma UHZ65 (Black)

So given its only $800 more which would you choose now ?
All things considered you personally would probably be happiest with the UHZ65

So can I use any white spandex or is there a special weave I need, does it need to be backed with a black liner at all
The White Spandex should be a 4-way Stretch called Milliskin, which denotes a Matte sheen'ed fabric with a ultra fine weave. Both those properties provide a smooth Image and excellent AT performance. While in the UK you might have issues finding Spandex with the exact denotation "Milliskin", if it lists itself as being 4-Way stretch (80% Polyester - 20% Spandex) and a Matte sheen, it should work very well.

The underlying Black layer is necessary to help prevent light lost to absorption...as well as enhance on-screen Black levels, Contrast, and therein provide an increased sharpness of the image. It should also be of the same type Spandex as the top layer,

It's pretty incredible that two layers of Spandex actually perform better acoustically that most every single layer of Mfg AT material. Also it is very telling that a couple of AT Screen cloth Mfg are now including a Black Backing with their product...at a premium of course.

With a Torch like the UHZ65, screen gain is not one of your concerns....in fact a higher gain might well be more of a detriment than a positive.

But........I want to go on record stating that the complete list of features that the Epson provides:
  • 2600 Lumen of Color Brightness (...more than sufficient for your usage...)
  • Excellent Optics
  • Prodigious Lens Shift both Horizontally and Vertically
  • Lens Memory for Format Changes
  • Quieter Operation
.........more than compensates for the extra lumens on the UHZ65
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I'd go for AT whenever possible. The main advantage is to have identical LCR on the same vertical plane. Under the screen center channel speakers is a big compromise in SQ because of the positioning and design (horizontal mtm, not an issue in your case). Keep in mind that you still want your L and R speakers to flank the screen for optimal soundstage. So there maybe no benefit in terms of projectable screen size.
People often put all 3 front speakers behind the screen but it is a compromised solution because L and R speakers are too close together. I know because I was stupid enough to do this.
As far as picture quality I do not think you will be disappointed with any of the popular fabrics in 0.8 to 1 gain range.
Good luck with the build.
Thank you and I understand about the L/R being to close together, the room is just over 3m wide so a 140" screen is almost the whole width so the L/R would be behind the screen and still almost as far apart as they can really get
 
  • Like
Reactions: zheka

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
All things considered you personally would probably be happiest with the UHZ65



The White Spandex should be a 4-way Stretch called Milliskin, which denotes a Matte sheen'ed fabric with a ultra fine weave. Both those properties provide a smooth Image and excellent AT performance. While in the UK you might have issues finding Spandex with the exact denotation "Milliskin", if it lists itself as being 4-Way stretch (80% Polyester - 20% Spandex) and a Matte sheen, it should work very well.

The underlying Black layer is necessary to help prevent light lost to absorption...as well as enhance on-screen Black levels, Contrast, and therein provide an increased sharpness of the image. It should also be of the same type Spandex as the top layer,

It's pretty incredible that two layers of Spandex actually perform better acoustically that most every single layer of Mfg AT material. Also it is very telling that a couple of AT Screen cloth Mfg are now including a Black Backing with their product...at a premium of course.

With a Torch like the UHZ65, screen gain is not one of your concerns....in fact a higher gain might well be more of a detriment than a positive.

But........I want to go on record stating that the complete list of features that the Epson provides:
  • 2600 Lumen of Color Brightness (...more than sufficient for your usage...)
  • Excellent Optics
  • Prodigious Lens Shift both Horizontally and Vertically
  • Lens Memory for Format Changes
  • Quieter Operation
.........more than compensates for the extra lumens on the UHZ65
Thank you I do think the Epson does offer better features I just wondered with the UHZ65 being a laser PJ would it offer a better picture for the extra £600.00
Thanks for the spandex guidance I will defiantly put your recommendations to good use
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
All things considered you personally would probably be happiest with the UHZ65



The White Spandex should be a 4-way Stretch called Milliskin, which denotes a Matte sheen'ed fabric with a ultra fine weave. Both those properties provide a smooth Image and excellent AT performance. While in the UK you might have issues finding Spandex with the exact denotation "Milliskin", if it lists itself as being 4-Way stretch (80% Polyester - 20% Spandex) and a Matte sheen, it should work very well.

The underlying Black layer is necessary to help prevent light lost to absorption...as well as enhance on-screen Black levels, Contrast, and therein provide an increased sharpness of the image. It should also be of the same type Spandex as the top layer,

It's pretty incredible that two layers of Spandex actually perform better acoustically that most every single layer of Mfg AT material. Also it is very telling that a couple of AT Screen cloth Mfg are now including a Black Backing with their product...at a premium of course.

With a Torch like the UHZ65, screen gain is not one of your concerns....in fact a higher gain might well be more of a detriment than a positive.

But........I want to go on record stating that the complete list of features that the Epson provides:
  • 2600 Lumen of Color Brightness (...more than sufficient for your usage...)
  • Excellent Optics
  • Prodigious Lens Shift both Horizontally and Vertically
  • Lens Memory for Format Changes
  • Quieter Operation
.........more than compensates for the extra lumens on the UHZ65
It just occurred to me that I may not have expressed my gratitude enough, its amazing the help guys like you give to guys like me, we are just playing at this and like to think we know what we are doing and to all my friends and family that see the end results that then think I am an expert in these things when all of us amateurs know we are just winging it.
Without people like you taking the time to write such detailed answers with reasons why - we would learn nothing and likely make a lot of expensive mistakes. Forgive me me if at times my reply's have sounded "yeah but why" and "why isn't this just as good" it is purely to better understand the answers given to questions so when people ask me I sound like I know what I am doing.
I have turned to this forum for advice many times over the last 10 years and have gradually improved my home theater now to my pinnacle where have the opportunity to be moving to a new house where I can build a dedicated home theater and like everyone else I wan't it to be the best it can be within my budget (who am I kidding my budget just like most was blown a long time ago) this is an addiction that could lead to a divorce if my wife didn't secretly love Saturday movie night just as much as the rest of us.
A big thank you MississippiMan, Zkeha and the many many countless others that have helped me :)(y):p:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
All things considered you personally would probably be happiest with the UHZ65



The White Spandex should be a 4-way Stretch called Milliskin, which denotes a Matte sheen'ed fabric with a ultra fine weave. Both those properties provide a smooth Image and excellent AT performance. While in the UK you might have issues finding Spandex with the exact denotation "Milliskin", if it lists itself as being 4-Way stretch (80% Polyester - 20% Spandex) and a Matte sheen, it should work very well.
e
The underlying Black layer is necessary to help prevent light lost to absorption...as well as enhance on-screen Black levels, Contrast, and therein provide an increased sharpness of the image. It should also be of the same type Spandex as the top layer,

It's pretty incredible that two layers of Spandex actually perform better acoustically that most every single layer of Mfg AT material. Also it is very telling that a couple of AT Screen cloth Mfg are now including a Black Backing with their product...at a premium of course.

With a Torch like the UHZ65, screen gain is not one of your concerns....in fact a higher gain might well be more of a detriment than a positive.

But........I want to go on record stating that the complete list of features that the Epson provides:
  • 2600 Lumen of Color Brightness (...more than sufficient for your usage...)
  • Excellent Optics
  • Prodigious Lens Shift both Horizontally and Vertically
  • Lens Memory for Format Changes
  • Quieter Operation
.........more than compensates for the extra lumens on the UHZ65
Well that's a bummer the widest roll of Milliskin I can find is 58", for a 140" screen I will need to get it closer to 78" wide and I think a 20" stretch will loose to much gain and open up the weave to much
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,225 Posts
Well that's a bummer the widest roll of Milliskin I can find is 58", for a 140" screen I will need to get it closer to 78" wide and I think a 20" stretch will loose to much gain and open up the weave to much
People have used the below to good effect, you may want to search around in the UK/EU for both white and black. Sadly CoViD has wrecked havoc on supply chains, and it may not be readily available.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #15

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,542 Posts
Well that's a bummer the widest roll of Milliskin I can find is 58", for a 140" screen I will need to get it closer to 78" wide and I think a 20" stretch will loose to much gain and open up the weave to much
58" (1470mm) spandex will stretch by 10% to 1620 mm - at that height you would have a 2880mm wide 16:9 screen - just about perfect for your room.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
58" (1470mm) spandex will stretch by 10% to 1620 mm - at that height you would have a 2880mm wide 16:9 screen - just about perfect for your room.
Yes I know I just wanted to go to the wall full width which would take it to about a 144" screen, at 1620mm that would give a diagonal of 130" but in reality allowing for the wrap around and black border if I don't go edge-less would drop that down to about a 120" - 125" screen, its a real shame because with a little work I may be able to get the 120" wide spandex but this is only a 88% /12% mix with just 2 way stretch as apposed to 80/20 4 way stretch so if I go with the 120" 2 way I get the 140"+ screen but may loose out on a little picture quality vs the 4 way stretch spandex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,542 Posts
Well I have a 3.6m x 1.57m 2.35:1 scope screen with 150cm spandex - sure its only a 2.8m wide 16:9 image but that is still a big screen. Especially when I only sit 3.2m away :)
Plus I zoom the 16:9 image out to fill the width - it puts the top and bottom of the image off the screen but you hardly ever miss it (or even notice).
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,471 Posts
Well that's a bummer the widest roll of Milliskin I can find is 58", for a 140" screen I will need to get it closer to 78" wide and I think a 20" stretch will loose to much gain and open up the weave to much
The 4-way can stretch out to a maximum of 73-74" wide if the pulling is done carefully and equally at all points. A reason it's not really suggested as an option is the overall inability for a noob to get such stretching so precise.

The simple fix being to reduce screen size by 4" diagonally and regain some little bit of leeway. On the flip side, you would not experience a noticeable drop in image quality with the 120" spandex because of the lower Spandex count. In fact`the need fo not over-stretch assures a smoother surface.

BTW @Superslim Thank you for the expresion of gratitude. It means a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Well I have a 3.6m x 1.57m 2.35:1 scope screen with 150cm spandex - sure its only a 2.8m wide 16:9 image but that is still a big screen. Especially when I only sit 3.2m away :)
Plus I zoom the 16:9 image out to fill the width - it puts the top and bottom of the image off the screen but you hardly ever miss it (or even notice).
Thanks I may well go with a similar size, I may have to if I can't find a supplier of the 120"
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top