[olinda cat]

I was watching Transporter 3 yesterday(Blu-ray) and noticed that the screen was invisable,which made me wonder about all of the factors that contribute to that effect. The screen,the room,The projector and of course the source.How many of us can not see the screen? My setup Pioneer RS-2 type,Carada BW,black out room and Blu-ray. JB

 

[erkq]



Quote:
Originally Posted by olinda cat /forum/post/16936118


I was watching Transporter 3 yesterday(Blu-ray) and noticed that the screen was invisable,which made me wonder about all of the factors that contribute to that effect. The screen,the room,The projector and of course the source.How many of us can not see the screen? My setup Pioneer RS-2 type,Carada BW,black out room and Blu-ray. JB

I can't see my SMX.

 

[Craig Peer]



Quote:
I was watching Transporter 3 yesterday(Blu-ray) and noticed that the screen was invisable,which made me wonder about all of the factors that contribute to that effect. The screen,the room,The projector and of course the source.

I think one thing that can make screen surfaces more visible is how bright your projector is. How many foot lamberts are you currently getting off your screen?


I find my screen surface to me more visible above 20 foot lamberts with some material than it is below 16 foot lamberts.

 

[troglobite]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer /forum/post/16936603


I think one thing that can make screen surfaces more visible is how bright your projector is. How many foot lamberts are you currently getting off your screen?


I find my screen surface to me more visible above 20 foot lamberts with some material than it is below 16 foot lamberts.

How do you people on this section of the forum keep from going blind? Mine is less than 8 foot lamberts and is plenty bright. I couldn't imagine 16 foot lamberts in a room able to be pitch black, let alone over 20. The glare when looking at white credits must be terrible, no matter what screen you have!

 

[Craig Peer]

8 foot lamberts would be like watching thru cataracts for me - I like it bright!! And I'm using a Firehawk G3 ( 118" wide 2.35:1 ) and a Da-lite High Contrast Cinema Vision ( 106" wide 16:9 ). 12 FL would be a recommended minimum anyway.

 

[SteveMo]

I see on average around two sparklies on my 106" High Power (2.8 gain) per 4 movies from 7 1/2 feet away. This is without sitting to avoid them which I have found is possible even at around 20ftl or more. It's just the part remembering to sit very still that doesn't work.

 

[Suntan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by troglobite /forum/post/16936636


How do you people on this section of the forum keep from going blind?

They wear their sunglasses at night...

-Suntan

 

[Ronomy]

With my old Sony LCD projector I started to feel the image was too dim around 8 ft-L. After a half hour in the room the image looked pretty good but when I first walked in or I came back from getting a drink it was too dim for a while until my eyes got used to it.


With My RS1 I start out at around 17 ft-L with a new bulb and that is pretty bright for me. Very bright scenes I can feel my eyes straining a little and can feel it during dark to bright transitions. I wouldn't want my setup any brighter. For most of the first 1000 hours on my bulb I am at 12 ft-L or higher which is perfect for me.

 

[dovercat]



Quote:
Originally Posted by troglobite /forum/post/16936636


How do you people on this section of the forum keep from going blind? Mine is less than 8 foot lamberts and is plenty bright. I couldn't imagine 16 foot lamberts in a room able to be pitch black, let alone over 20. The glare when looking at white credits must be terrible, no matter what screen you have!

Check out the old brightness survey thread.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=984992


I am with you, less than 8ft lamberts looks plenty bright to me. If I calculated the ftL off the projector manufactures figures, rather than measured it I would end up with silly numbers, but I expect many quoting high numbers have actually measured their setups. Afterall crt is what 35+ftL and a two fold increase in brightness would only be percieved as less than a 20% increase.


Viewing distance just over 8ft from a 8ft width screen.

I use a painted (dulux light and space absolute white rich matt with lumitec technology) wall, the screen is not visible expect in all white images, and then only due to my poor diy painting and if I look for it. I tried neutral grey and a silver-grey paint mix both made the screen more visible, in bright scenes with expanses of the same color like clear blue sky. I think image contrast/gamma and color saturation has an effect, the more depth in the image the less likely you notice it the screen.

 

[mdputnam]



Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq /forum/post/16936385


I can't see my SMX.

Last night I spent 20 minutes looking for my Dalite HP screen, then the wife pointed out that it was hanging on the wall where it always is.

 

[Kelvin1965S]

This was one of the improvements I noticed when going from a Greywolf II screen to my current Beamax Matt White tensioned screen. I can't 'see' the screen surface at all even on bright scenes with panning, where my old screen was like watching through a mesh. It helps that I'm sat about 13' back, but I need to as it's nearly 10' wide 2.35:1 format.

I don't know what my fL actually measures as I tried using an I1-LT to calibrate my HD350/Lumagen HDQ combo but I wasn't convinced it was very accurate (or repeatable). IIRC it was measuring 8-9fL off the screen for 100 IRE, but I've since opened the iris up a little (in the service menu) but also the lamp has more hours on it. All I know is that on bright scenes I can 'feel' my eyes react (probably more down to eyestrain from too much PC work beforehand

) and I wouldn't want it any brighter in my fully blacked out room.

 

[R Harkness]

Right now I'm just projecting a Panasonic AE900 (720p) projector on to a wall covered in white primer. It looks great. I actually pulled out my sample of Stewart ST-130 G3 material and from what I could tell the gain was almost identical between the wall and the "real" screen material. Not only that, looking up close, the pixel definition was, if anything, crisper on the wall than on the screen material.


Nor can I notice much, if any, texture to the image on the wall either.


Is it possible the difference between projecting on a wall vs using a screen can be over-rated? (That is, unless you need a surface with more directional characteristics).

 

[erkq]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mdputnam /forum/post/16941197


Last night I spent 20 minutes looking for my Dalite HP screen, then the wife pointed out that it was hanging on the wall where it always is.

I knew I was setting myself up for that.

 

[GoCaboNow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/16941394


Right now I'm just projecting a Panasonic AE900 (720p) projector on to a wall covered in white primer. It looks great. I actually pulled out my sample of Stewart ST-130 G3 material and from what I could tell the gain was almost identical between the wall and the "real" screen material. Not only that, looking up close, the pixel definition was, if anything, crisper on the wall than on the screen material.


Nor can I notice much, if any, texture to the image on the wall either.


Is it possible the difference between projecting on a wall vs using a screen can be over-rated? (That is, unless you need a surface with more directional characteristics).

I found the same to be true when I was testing screens near the end of my room construction. I had "bare dry wall primer" on the wall. Beautiful stuff that dries to eggshell smoothness and color. I then taped screen samples including the carada bw, high power, grays and some unity gain, to the primed wall. The primed wall looked great. The BW appeared to be the same as the primer as it just disappeared on the wall. The 1.0 screen samples were just slightly dimmer than the bw and primer.

 

[Mikenificent1]



Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/16941394


Not only that, looking up close, the pixel definition was, if anything, crisper on the wall than on the screen material.


Nor can I notice much, if any, texture to the image on the wall either.


Is it possible the difference between projecting on a wall vs using a screen can be over-rated? (That is, unless you need a surface with more directional characteristics).

that's because the wall is a matte finish, like I've been saying all along, gain destroys picture detail and ultimate sharpness. Maybe it's not too late to change your material to Studiotek !00?

 

[erkq]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikenificent1 /forum/post/16943545


that's because the wall is a matte finish, like I've been saying all along, gain destroys picture detail and ultimate sharpness. Maybe it's not too late to change your material to Studiotek !00?

How close do you have to be to see the difference? Can you see it at 10 feet?

 

[troglobite]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikenificent1 /forum/post/16943545


that's because the wall is a matte finish, like I've been saying all along, gain destroys picture detail and ultimate sharpness. Maybe it's not too late to change your material to Studiotek !00?

I've been saying that for the whole time I've been a member a year ago. Your best bet for a screen is to use a titanium oxide gesso, such as Tri-Art. You won't be able to beat it for the price, and the screens which do, will only beat it barely but you'll have to pay several thousand for what only costs a couple hundred for a DIY gesso.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq /forum/post/16943781


How close do you have to be to see the difference? Can you see it at 10 feet?

Art grade gesso is so smooth, you need to put your nose to the screen to see the gesso brush brush marks. It's like you poured on a liquid covering. You can't see it at all. No sparkles, and a very white white. I think if most people saw gesso screens for sale done professionally, no one would buy any other screen. Except Mr. High Power fan boy extreme, who knows I'm talking about him!

 

[erkq]



Quote:
Originally Posted by troglobite /forum/post/16943881


Art grade gesso is so smooth, you need to put your nose to the screen to see the gesso brush brush marks.

I don't like to sit that close.

 

[troglobite]



Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq /forum/post/16943894


I don't like to sit that close.

Then you won't see my brushmanship

 

[R Harkness]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikenificent1 /forum/post/16943545


that's because the wall is a matte finish, like I've been saying all along, gain destroys picture detail and ultimate sharpness. Maybe it's not too late to change your material to Studiotek !00?

The thing is, in practice, I do not find that to be so. In general the same image made brighter will also tend to appear sharper. I've tested out the Stewart ST130 against neutral gain screens and while up close the pixels look very similar, if anything the edge to the neutral gain screens, from further away I find it easier to see the detail of the picture on the slightly higher gain screen and it appears a tad sharper.


Along the same continuum, I'm amazed at what a very high gain screen like the Da Lite High Power screen does for an image, when compared to a neutral gain screen. It makes the image look super sharp and detailed, like getting a new display (I've done the comparison several times with my HP screen and with other people's HP screen compared to neutral gain screens).


So, at least in my experience, whatever minimal precision may be lost at the pixel level (if there is indeed any of consequence) seems to be quite made up for by the increased visible detail and apparent sharpness in actual images, when I add gain.

(At least with some gain screens).