[Jeff Smith]

I see lots written about the Dalite HP (2.9) and Silverstar (effectively about 3.0) "brightness junkie screeens" vs the 1-1.3 gain "purist screens"...but I never see anything about the middle ground.


The Stewart 1.3 has always been the standard bearer it seems, but what if you calculate that you only need a few more ft lamberts to meet your goal? I know Stewart has an "ultimate 1.5 and 2.0" and they are supposed to be fairly honest in their estimations (unlike Carida and Vutec, which are great, but overestimate).


Just pretend that I have done all the proper calculations and talked to enough people to assume that I want to consider this instead of the big jump to the SS or HP. Has any one tried these or similar?


Tryg mentioned the Pearlescent by Dalite at 1.5, but 2.0 sounds like more margin for erreer. I just cant make a HP fit in my scheme due to the retro nature, I need a ceiling mount. I have a RS20 calibrated by Jason coming, and just want more "room to work" with my available lumens as the bulb ages.


For those who still would advise a HP, my best "head height setup" (ie on a table behind the seating which I really don't want) would be 14-18" above my head. My best (lowest) ceiling height would be 44-48" above my head with the PJ mounted 3' further back on the ceiling, extended down enough so it doesn't hit my head.


Let the opinions flow, I couldn't find enough with searching.

 

[Jeff Smith]

Seriously, I can't believe with all the theater nuts around here, no one is asking about any gains between 1.3 and 2.9.


There just seems to be a lot of people afraid of the HP's viewing cone and the SS's screen texture sparkles (the "high gain options), but then they jump all the way down to a Bright White or Stewart at 1.0-1.3 gain. I don't get why no one looks at the middle ground. I'm sure with all the "testers" here someone must have researched this already, but I never ever hear Tryg talk about it.


What am I missing?


Is the HP at off angle viewing that good that it "fills the gap" by already "being" a 1.5-2.0?


I need to check out the screen calculator again, prior to this, I mainly was looking at side to side variations and not vertical ones with the HP, but I thought some one who knows said the vertical cone in the HP was even worse than the horizontal ( although Tryg says it's not that bad.

 

[erniec]

I have wondered the same thing. seems like there should be a market for those of us who can't accomodate the tradeoffs associated with the High Power or Vutec's of the world but would like a nice bump up from the Studiotek or Carada Brilliant White. I for one would jump at a reasonably priced screen that is in the 2.0 range. I know that Stewart has the Ultramat 1.5 and 2.0 but you never hear anything about those models plus they are a little pricey. I have the Brilliant White and I would buy a higher gain screen from Carada in heartbeat.

 

[R Harkness]

Good idea for a thread and I'm baffled too. Ideally I'd have a gain between the Carada and the HP screen. Right now I'm choosing the Stewart ST-130 because...well...as this thread points out, there is so little information about any other screens between the ST-130 and the super high gain screens.


I'd love to hear from anyone who has seen or tested the Stewart Ultramat screens!

 

[Jeff Smith]

Does Carada make a higher gain?


Tryg says dalite makes a pearlescent 1.5, can he or anyone chip in?


Stewart also makes a 1.8 gain.

 

[Tryg]

The Stewart Ultramatte's are basically the same thing/process as the Da-Lite Cinemavision/Pearlescent. The problem is the higher gain issues really start to display themselves above about 1.5. Are they junk? no just more downsides. Ive seen the Ultramatte 2.7 and it was pretty good but comparing to Silverstar the Silverstar is just much better at basically the same gain.


Stay at 1.5 or lower gain when using these pearlescent topcoated products if you want to be safe. or be a rebel and go higher.

There's probably not much difference between the Stewart 1.8 and Da-Lite 1.5

 

[erniec]



Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/15463344


Good idea for a thread and I'm baffled too. Ideally I'd have a gain between the Carada and the HP screen. Right now I'm choosing the Stewart ST-130 because...well...as this thread points out, there is so little information about any other screens between the ST-130 and the super high gain screens.


I'd love to hear from anyone who has seen or tested the Stewart Ultramat screens!

I have friend who has a 123" Ultramat 150 that he uses with his Planar 8150, and his picture IMO is phenominal. Really nice match, I can't really say there is anything that I see to complain about.

 

[Natural_person]

I used to have a homebuilt screen using Draper M2500, which I think is 2.5 gain. I never noticed the falloff at the more extreme viewing angles, and would happily use the same material again. (NEC 6PG on a 92" screen)

 

[Jeff Smith]

Why does the SS not have the bad characteristics of other high gain screens re: hot spots? Is that the trade off for the sparkles?

 

[FLBoy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Smith /forum/post/15447528


I need to check out the screen calculator again, prior to this, I mainly was looking at side to side variations and not vertical ones with the HP, but I thought some one who knows said the vertical cone in the HP was even worse than the horizontal ( although Tryg says it's not that bad.

The HP is not more sensitive to vertical offset than to horizontal offset. If you had a square HP screen, you could turn it 90 degrees sideways, and it would look the same. What counts is the 3-dimensional angle between the projector vector and the viewing vector. In other words, think of pulling a first string tight from the PJ lens to a point on the screen. Then pull a second string tight from the same point on the screen to the viewer's eyes. The angle between the two strings at the screen is the "error angle." The larger the error angle, the smaller the gain. For maximum gain, you want to minimize both horizontal and vertical offset.

 

[Art Sonneborn]

I used two Stewart Videomatte 200 (1.8 gain) screen for ten years. One was microperf the other was not. I needed the gain (I felt) for more fL when I had CRTs. They hot spot but this was visible only when there was a very uniform flat field.


Art

 

[noah katz]

"Is the HP at off angle viewing that good that it "fills the gap" by already "being" a 1.5-2.0?"


Pretty much IMO. I estimate I'm getting about 1.8 in my ceiling mount setup.

 

[Maestro J]



Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz /forum/post/15468234


"Is the HP at off angle viewing that good that it "fills the gap" by already "being" a 1.5-2.0?"


Pretty much IMO. I estimate I'm getting about 1.8 in my ceiling mount setup.

I have wondered about this for a long time as well. I own the Dalite Pearlescent 1.5 gain screen (16:9 at 110") and I feel like I settled for it because there wasn't a real screen with a roughly 2.0 gain out there with a reasonable price tag. I also ceiling mount my PJ so everybody told me HP isn't for me. But I have always wondered if I would have gotten a gain of about 2.0 with a HP and ceiling mount setup.


Now I am up against the same predicament as I want to go CIH and don't know what to get.

 

[noah katz]

"But I have always wondered if I would have gotten a gain of about 2.0 with a HP and ceiling mount setup."


Use the HP screen calculator to find out; it's around here somewhere.

 

[mobius]



Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz /forum/post/15468234


"Is the HP at off angle viewing that good that it "fills the gap" by already "being" a 1.5-2.0?"


Pretty much IMO. I estimate I'm getting about 1.8 in my ceiling mount setup.

Which PJ do you have and what is the offset (if any)?


I just ordered some samples of HCCV and HP fabric from Da-Lite. After reading Tryg's post, I need to add Pearlescent to the list. I may ring up Vutec and see about getting a SS or PearlBrite samples. Everything I read about the HP means it won't work to peak efficiency in my overhead setup. Just the same, I wanted to give it a whirl. I'm running a BOC screen now, so I expect notable improvement from all of these choices.

 

[noah katz]

I have a JVC RS1 mounted 7' from the floor; my screen is 65" tall w/the top edge about 3" higher than the lens.


The pj is 23' from the screen and I sit about 13' from the screen.

 

[R Harkness]

Noah,


Your projector is quite a bit further from the screen than mine, (Mine is about 13.6 feet away). I wonder if that helps you in terms of expanding the sweet spot of the HP. I've seen the HP in two set ups with the projector about the same distance as my own, and one in which the projector is further...about 17 feet as I remember.


I have a to-the-inch accurate Google Sketchup model of my projection room and have measured the viewing angle axis numbers of each seat. The off axis performance that I see in my set up perfectly tracks the axis/gain measurements provided by Don Stewart of the HP screen, in terms of expected drop off of brightness (and Tryg used Don Stewart's measurements in making his viewing cone graph in the HP screen thread). I'd be curious to see if and how much this issue changes with a projector much further away.

Not possible in my case, unfortunately.


(The HP screen continues to blow me away though....)

 

[FLBoy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/15472244


I'd be curious to see if and how much this issue changes with a projector much further away.

With a ceiling mounted PJ, for a typical center seat the HP screen gain increases as as the PJ throw increases. Unfortunately, the increased gain is offset by two undesirable factors: (1) lumen loss due to the "slower" lens at longer throw and (2) for off-center seats, substantial horizontal screen gain nonuniformity when the seating is far forward of the PJ.


You can see how the screen gain and horizontal uniformity change with throw by playing with my screen gain calculator (in my signature below).

 

[noah katz]

"I wonder if that helps you in terms of expanding the sweet spot of the HP."


It's no mystery; it decreases the angle over closer and thus higher gain.


"(2) for off-center seats, substantial horizontal screen gain nonuniformity when the seating is far forward of the PJ."


Gain may be lower (not visibly so in my setup), but there definitely is not a uniformity issue.

 

[FLBoy]

Noah- I guess if one can't perceive the horizontal nonuniformity on normal program material, then indeed it is not an issue. Try putting up an all white test image, and I think you will see that the same side of the screen as the off-center seat is brighter than the opposite side of the screen. If you still can't see it, hold a book or something up to block your view the center of the image. You should definitely be able to see the difference in brightness then.


If you don't believe my screen gain calculator, think about it this way. If the seating row is much closer to the screen than is the PJ, then for a point towards the right side of the screen a viewer in a right outside seat will be more nearly directly under the projected beam, and the angle between the projected beam and the viewing angle will be minimum (= highest gain). Clearly, for the same right outside seat, this not true for a corresponding point on the left side of the screen.