[dgrizzard]

I have a JVC RS1000 and 115" 16:9 Carl's FlexiWhite with the JVC right around minimum distance. I'm just wondering if the FlexiWhite at min distance and that size is maybe too bright and I'm losing some contrast/raised black levels. If so is there some paint/modification I could/should do to my screen to help this?

Thanks!


Edit: Room is completely blacked out/light controlled.

 

[bud16415]

Why don’t you just calibrate the brightness?

What are your rooms colors and ambient light level?

 

[dgrizzard]

Why don’t you just calibrate the brightness?

What are your rooms colors and ambient light level?

I have and I feel like the settings are probably pretty close, without paying for a pro calibration. Which I probably will eventually.

Room colors are triple black velvet on the walls/ceiling and 0 ambient light.

 

[SirMaster]

You shouldn't be losing any significant amount of contrast.

Raising black floor? Yes. To fix that simply close down the iris to reach your desired black floor. Or are you saying that it's still too high at -15 iris in low lamp mode?

 

[bud16415]

I agree if worst comes to worst get a ND2 filter at your local camera shop and cover the lens.

 

[dgrizzard]

You shouldn't be losing any significant amount of contrast.

Raising black floor? Yes. To fix that simply close down the iris to reach your desired black floor. Or are you saying that it's still too high at -15 iris in low lamp mode?

Not in front of my projector right now, but this is generally how I run it (through MadVR) with everything at brightness -3 ...

SDR: Low Lamp -10

HDR: Low Lamp -2

3D: High Lamp 0

Mostly I watch 4K/HDR, what would be a good method to set the "proper" iris setting? I've generally been doing it by eye trying to balance out black level vs brightness. sorry this has gotten off topic, maybe I should move this over to projectors.

 

[SirMaster]

Not in front of my projector right now, but this is generally how I run it (through MadVR) with everything at brightness -3 ...

SDR: Low Lamp -10

HDR: Low Lamp -2

3D: High Lamp 0

Mostly I watch 4K/HDR, what would be a good method to set the "proper" iris setting? I've generally been doing it by eye trying to balance out black level vs brightness. sorry this has gotten off topic, maybe I should move this over to projectors.

By eye is fine (different people have different tolerances for different black floors). SDR you would normally target 14-16 foot lamberts. HDR you would normally target as bright as possible as long as you are OK with the black floor. I would go iris 0 for HDR myself. Then you can set the target Nits in madVR (hopefully you are using the madVR test builds with dynamic tone-mapping) to whatever your screen white level is at that iris setting.

 

[dgrizzard]

By eye is fine. SDR you would normally target 14-16 foot lamberts. HDR you would normally target as bright as possible as long as you are OK with the black floor. I would go iris 0 for HDR myself. Then you can set the target Nits in madVR to whatever your screen white level is at that iris setting.

Thanks, going to re-run some stuff and tweak my settings when I get home.

 

[MississippiMan]

Or you can approach the problem at it's source....the Screen itself. The ideal circumstance would be to raise your Black floor by attenuating the Blacks disproportionately to how much you percieve the Whites and Colors are impacted. Along with effective calibration, you can get the Blacks some finite Shadow detail you hoped you'd have with the 1000 coming out of the gate.


But therein lies part of the problem....the 1000 having only 40:1 Native Contrast, yet it put's out a full 1800 DLA lumen, so it can and obviously does wash out blacks on a Matte White 1.2 gain surface.


Others suggest losing light output to compensate. Ugh.


I would not consider robbing Peter to Pay Paul by attenuating light from the PJ in any manner beyond correctly calibrating to the color of the Screen surface. And since White isn't cutting it, a moderately Grey surface that has modest amounts of Metallic Content is a certain way to obtain / maintain the dynamic colors and bright whites you expected from the JVC.

There are many JVC'ers who have recently painted Screen materials as well as Drywall with Silver Fire v2.5, and done so in several different levels of Grey according to their need.

These JVCs include the following:
2 ea. RS-1000 NX5 - 2 ea. RS-2000 NX7 - 2 ea. RS-3000 NX9

.......as well as 4 ea x790r / RS540. These older units have FAR better Contrast than a RS-1000 at a higher Lumen output (100 lumen more) 130K:1 vs 40K:1

Yet even there was aacknowledgment that there was room for improvement.

So your not going slumming here.

On many / in most situations any PJ's image can be improved upon. Depending on various factors, it might require only Calibration on a Matte White to reach one's personal satisfaction point. For others, it becomes a combination of PJ/Screen....and even the Room....

In any case, this is the DIY Screen Forum, and the knowledge and applications you might be looking for are here.

 

[bud16415]

Just think about the above. In a perfect room, no light coming in and the room covered in triple black velvet so no cross reflections a screen can be made that will lower the black floor and not lower the white ceiling and possibly even raise the white ceiling. This in effect is improving the native CR a projector can achieve.

All the commercial screen makers in the world haven’t done this yet.

Screens are no longer passive devices they are now active devices.

 

[MississippiMan]

Any Projector with just 40K1 Contrast can use a boost that makes it more commensurate to machines with 100K:1 and above.


You can try to make light all you want but try stating that there WILL NOT be a shown difference between 40K:1 and 160K:1 (both native) as shown on identical Matte White surfaces.


You'll be laughed at if you do.


The same applies when a PJ is properly matched up with a Contrast Boosting surface. IN ANY Watching Environment....Perceived or otherwise, the visible difference is plainly apparent and has been validated repeatedly for many years by literally hundreds upon hundreds.


And you can take your "Active Screens" comment and go play in the sand where you keep your head during such conversations. You roll that ditty out whenever you have the whim to do so, and it's never anything but a silly comment, one that no one alludes to. Just like when you claim that some say the Screen improved the Native Contrast as "delivered" by the Projector. Again....no one has ever made that statement, but that doesn't keep such as you from stating such.



Are you posting back on DIY Screens just to try to discourage others from considering improvements others have benefited from so many times? Why not go further and just call them all Fools and misguided individuals? People who cannot trust their own eyes nor know what actually looks to be an improvement.

 

[dgrizzard]

Or you can approach the problem at it's source....the Screen itself. The ideal circumstance would be to raise your Black floor by attenuating the Blacks disproportionately to how much you percieve the Whites and Colors are impacted. Along with effective calibration, you can get the Blacks some finite Shadow detail you hoped you'd have with the 1000 coming out of the gate.


But therein lies part of the problem....the 1000 having only 40:1 Native Contrast, yet it put's out a full 1800 DLA lumen, so it can and obviously does wash out blacks on a Matte White 1.2 gain surface.


Others suggest losing light output to compensate. Ugh.


I would not consider robbing Peter to Pay Paul by attenuating light from the PJ in any manner beyond correctly calibrating to the color of the Screen surface. And since White isn't cutting it, a moderately Grey surface that has modest amounts of Metallic Content is a certain way to obtain / maintain the dynamic colors and bright whites you expected from the JVC.

There are many JVC'ers who have recently painted Screen materials as well as Drywall with Silver Fire v2.5, and done so in several different levels of Grey according to their need.

These JVCs include the following:
2 ea. RS-1000 NX5 - 2 ea. RS-2000 NX7 - 2 ea. RS-3000 NX9

.......as well as 4 ea x790r / RS540. These older units have FAR better Contrast than a RS-1000 at a higher Lumen output (100 lumen more) 130K:1 vs 40K:1

Yet even there was aacknowledgment that there was room for improvement.

So your not going slumming here.

On many / in most situations any PJ's image can be improved upon. Depending on various factors, it might require only Calibration on a Matte White to reach one's personal satisfaction point. For others, it becomes a combination of PJ/Screen....and even the Room....

In any case, this is the DIY Screen Forum, and the knowledge and applications you might be looking for are here.

Thanks for the recommendations. What I think I would like to do is try the silver fire while keeping my current material as is. Is there a material you would recommend that I could put up for comparison purposes?

 

[MississippiMan]

Thanks for the recommendations. What I think I would like to do is try the silver fire while keeping my current material as is. Is there a material you would recommend that I could put up for comparison purposes?

You have a couple good choices that have extremely smooth surfaces..


Another Flexi-White stretched across another DIY Wood Frame.


Sintra Board cut to size from a 5' x 10' x 6mm sheet


Both feature bright white surfaces that are ideally suited for spraying onto, with the Sintra actually being specifically made for painting Signs. If your looking for the best possible choice to keep in service if satisfied, the Sintra is it.



I realize that some doubt has been stirred up, and by someone who has never even come close to trying SF with a PJ of the ilk of a JVC -anything-, but it seems a shame you already have a Flexi set and ready and have to contemplate hedging your decision despite all the many excellent examples that have already gone down the road before you.


The most positive spin I can place on it all is how happy I know you'll be with your final results. I / we just don't see anyone (...who follows the provided advice and instructions...) coming back stating otherwise....perhaps the best and only argument needed for the very few naysayers out there.

 

[bud16415]

I realize that some doubt has been stirred up, and by someone who has never even come close to trying SF with a PJ of the ilk of a JVC -anything-, but it seems a shame you already have a Flexi set and ready and have to contemplate hedging your decision despite all the many excellent examples that have already gone down the road before you.


The most positive spin I can place on it all is how happy I know you'll be with your final results. I / we just don't see anyone (...who follows the provided advice and instructions...) coming back stating otherwise....perhaps the best and only argument needed for the very few naysayers out there.

With all due respect to the OP and not wanting to derail his thread. I have never once said Silver Fire / whatever variation we are talking about isn’t a satisfying surface to many to project to and that the users of such haven’t went away happy to never return wanting better. They may have very well done just that. I don’t know what their rooms were like or what projectors they owned.

What I was stating is the lingo that is used to describe how it works is not based on science. I don’t have to have used a product such as a screen to know that some properties of light reflecting off a surface are impossible. The fact is a passive screen surface is going to work on weak light intensity in the exact same way it works on strong light intensity. It can’t reject or absorb weak light to improve blacks and at the same time strengthen bright light to enhance whites.

This claim is reported 1000s of times throughout the forums for many years using all kinds of superlative double talk, and when questioned about the core principal of this more double talk explaining away the science.

I don’t even doubt that to the eye some of the claims don’t appear to happen because visual perception of contrast is influenced by the state of the eyes adjustment. No different than the above advice to adjust the projectors iris setting or install a ND filter to lower the black floor.

Visual perception is a far different thing than the claims being made a screen can do things contrary to science.

Before I go away from this forum for another 6 years, think about this. If the above was possible don’t you think companies like Stewart FilmScreen would be investing in doing these same things on a mass production scale? Don’t you think IMAX and Disney would be clamoring to have these surfaces to enhance contrast in their venues?

 

[MississippiMan]

Weaker Light is / will be more attenuated to more a degree than is Stronger Light. The production of Black and all of the lower end of the Grey Scale is accomplished by reducing the intensity of the light content as well as how such light is delivered. Black is achieved by the absence of light (involving both color & intensity combined) so beyond what is produce during post-production, the best PJs strive to preserve Blacks and overall contrast by minimizing intrusive light onto DLP / LCD / LyCos panels. There exists a given degree of Black that is provided by any given content, and once that content exits the lens, it can be affected....and changed either positively or negatively by a number of factors. No one has or ever states that any additional light is created....merely repurposed. But it's easily understood and seen that a reduction in light can be made.



When certain specific metallic s are used along with a attenuating "translucent" Grey Base, they can and do react differently (albeit passively) to light that varies in intensity. Even the increased reflectivity of a metallic particle cannot "increase" the incoming weaker light in proportion to how much it is attenuated by the far more suppressive, non-reflective Grey Base.



As such, when employed, the effects are completely different than what happens with a Grey Base that contains no such assisting materials is the surface. Under those circumstances, only the increasing of lumen recieved at the surface can attempt to counteract the "OVERALL" attenuation such a basic Grey surface produces.



And to address the other point taken to task....there are a great many Angular and Retro Reflective Screens with well documented measurements that show varied and various degrees of gain loss off-axis. The fact that some show less....some more...and some decidedly less or more than others is proof positive that there is / are variances in performance that is directly related to the degree of on-axis Gain as relates to whatever point...if at all...that 1/2 gain is reached. Adding to that there are screen designs that specifically work to minimize off-axis light loss and there it is, the real and actual answer, not a unfounded argument or willfully ignored effects seen across many Screen platforms.



That is all very elemental, and any attempt to twist those indisputable, undeniable facts only serves to show a desire to ignore or dispute such easily understandable points.


Lastly, Commercial Theaters simply do not have any concern with Patrons viewing content off-axis. IMax uses multiple PJsto produce their ultra-wide effects, as well as avoid light loss at the extreme edges. In no Standard Theater I or you have ever frequented is anyone sitting more that 30 degrees off dead center. Yet even those Dolby /DTS Certified Theaters are held up as being inferior to what is possible to achieve at home...visually speaking.



And as far as Stewart FS, they are about the ONLY Mfg that has patently ignored producing any screen that goes beyond 1.3 gain while employing really aggressive ALR performance. They did / do have the Greyhawk ( Gain), both of which indeed embrace their own proprietary technology that strives to accomplish...to at least some degree, exactly what is in dispute here...so really, where are the legs your trying to use to support your arguments?

 

[bud16415]

Weaker Light is / will be more attenuated to more a degree than is Stronger Light. The production of Black and all of the lower end of the Grey Scale is accomplished by reducing the intensity of the light content as well as how such light is delivered. Black is achieved by the absence of light (involving both color & intensity combined) so beyond what is produce during post-production, the best PJs strive to preserve Blacks and overall contrast by minimizing intrusive light onto DLP / LCD / LyCos panels. There exists a given degree of Black that is provided by any given content, and once that content exits the lens, it can be affected....and changed either positively or negatively by a number of factors. No one has or ever states that any additional light is created....merely repurposed. But it's easily understood and seen that a reduction in light can be made.



When certain specific metallic s are used along with a attenuating "translucent" Grey Base, they can and do react differently (albeit passively) to light that varies in intensity. Even the increased reflectivity of a metallic particle cannot "increase" the incoming weaker light in proportion to how much it is attenuated by the far more suppressive, non-reflective Grey Base.



As such, when employed, the effects are completely different than what happens with a Grey Base that contains no such assisting materials is the surface. Under those circumstances, only the increasing of lumen recieved at the surface can attempt to counteract the "OVERALL" attenuation such a basic Grey surface produces.



And to address the other point taken to task....there are a great many Angular and Retro Reflective Screens with well documented measurements that show varied and various degrees of gain loss off-axis. The fact that some show less....some more...and some decidedly less or more than others is proof positive that there is / are variances in performance that is directly related to the degree of on-axis Gain as relates to whatever point...if at all...that 1/2 gain is reached. Adding to that there are screen designs that specifically work to minimize off-axis light loss and there it is, the real and actual answer, not a unfounded argument or willfully ignored effects seen across many Screen platforms.



That is all very elemental, and any attempt to twist those indisputable, undeniable facts only serves to show a desire to ignore or dispute such easily understandable points.


Lastly, Commercial Theaters simply do not have any concern with Patrons viewing content off-axis. IMax uses multiple PJsto produce their ultra-wide effects, as well as avoid light loss at the extreme edges. In no Standard Theater I or you have ever frequented is anyone sitting more that 30 degrees off dead center. Yet even those Dolby /DTS Certified Theaters are held up as being inferior to what is possible to achieve at home...visually speaking.



And as far as Stewart FS, they are about the ONLY Mfg that has patently ignored producing any screen that goes beyond 1.3 gain while employing really aggressive ALR performance. They did / do have the Greyhawk ( Gain), both of which indeed embrace their own proprietary technology that strives to accomplish...to at least some degree, exactly what is in dispute here...so really, where are the legs your trying to use to support your arguments?

Again I won’t try and dispute or argue your faulty verbose explanation, because it is like a dog chasing its tail.

Your point of repurposed light in the case of angular reflective screens is correct. All energy has to be accounted for. It can be reflected or absorbed by the screen and in the case of absorbed it is converted to heat dissipated by the screen into the air around it. If it is reflected it can be Lambertine in nature or directed some other way. That’s all that can happen.

If one lumen of (Black) light is mitigated 50% by the screen 1000 lumens (White) will be mitigated 50% by the screen. Contrast Ratio is the ratio of how many times brighter the best white is to the best black a projector can produce. In the above it would be 1000:1 unmitigated and the second mitagated example 500:.5 1000/1=1000 and 500/.5=1000

CR does not change and can’t change.

This is the reason Stewart FilmScreen makes and sells these premier screens that are white and range between 1.0-1.3 gain. Because they are perfect for people such as the OP that has a stellar projector in a perfect room void of cross reflections. If he called them up today and explained what he has they would never advise him he needed a Greyhawk or Firehawk screen.

I really don’t know why I try and explain this over and over. I guess it is for outsiders reading along to look at the two explanations and compare the logic and how the logic is presented and take away what they want from the comparison.

Please rebut one last time I will give you the last word.

Now the OP can follow whatever path he likes.

 

[fierce_gt]

I have a JVC RS1000 and 115" 16:9 Carl's FlexiWhite with the JVC right around minimum distance. I'm just wondering if the FlexiWhite at min distance and that size is maybe too bright and I'm losing some contrast/raised black levels. If so is there some paint/modification I could/should do to my screen to help this?

Thanks!


Edit: Room is completely blacked out/light controlled.

you really can't improve CR with the screen. Maybe perceived contrast, i seem to be a LOT, like a LOT more sensitive to elevated black levels than i am to bright whites. so in my eyes, but certainly not a meter, a dimmer image with excellent black levels does look better. usually the only reason you'd want to reduce brightness is to avoid light bouncing off the screen, lighting up the walls, and then hitting the screen again. It sounds like in your room, there wouldn't be a good reason for a grey screen, or ALR since you wouldn't have much light bouncing around in there.

the contrast can actually be improved by a couple of things(not sure if possible in your room though). clamping down the iris is one, and moving the projector to the furthest throw distance is another. Both of these things help with the light control inside the projector, and the result is a higher native contrast ratio. this actually can be measured with a meter, and i believe is considered basically a rule for all projectors.

as mentioned before, an ND filter could also be a cheap and easy method to reducing black levels. Think of it like sunglasses for your projector. Probably not the best solution, but if your projector truly is 'too bright' and therefore has too bright of blacks, then $10 for an ND2 filter seems like a better bandaid fix than several hundred for a grey screen. both will just reduce the brightness of blacks and whites equally(not improving actual CR), but the usual advantage of the grey screen also reducing the affect of ambient light (the ND2 filter obviously does nothing for ambient light) doesn't sound like it's needed in your room. the filter can easily be removed when your bulb starts to dim, or you want the brightness back for HDR too.

it's not always the best method, but i tend to try the cheap, easy fixes first when the solution isn't well documented
-close iris (free and takes two seconds)
-move projector (might be free and easy, could be a significant remodel and not worth it at all)
-ND2 filter (cheap and super easy)

personally, i'd spend the money on calibration(pro or buying a meter so you can DIY) before a new screen.

 

[dgrizzard]

I think I'm going to end up trying a mixture of solutions. So far I have actually opened my iris for HDR to -0 still on low lamp, but adjusted my nits in MadVR to what they approx. should be. So far it looks a lot better just doing that.

Next I will probably start playing with the iris on SDR to see what I can do. And then last I might end up painting half of my current screen silverfire to do a side by side comparison. If I like it I will just paint the other half of my screen or if I don't I can buy an mount new material from Carl (what I currently have) for relatively cheap. Or I might just buy another piece from Carl and paint that to see if I like it or not. I also already have ND filters since I do photography as a hobby so I might try it, but I'm not sure if it would help or not. Moving the projector isn't possible, at the back of the room already so nowhere to go.

 

[Dave in Green]

you really can't improve CR with the screen. Maybe perceived contrast, i seem to be a LOT, like a LOT more sensitive to elevated black levels than i am to bright whites. so in my eyes, but certainly not a meter, a dimmer image with excellent black levels does look better. ...

This is a really important point. The marketing for "high contrast" screens implies that the screen creates better contrast without mentioning that the contrast improvement is "perceived" by the human eye and not a measurable difference. That contrast perception is greatly influenced by personal preference. Given a choice, some prefer more convincing blacks at the expense of less bright whites whereas others would take brighter whites at the expense of more greyish blacks. So when someone asks for advice it's important to try to understand their personal preferences and offer potential solutions that best fit them as opposed to what we may prefer for ourselves. @fierce_gt and @bud16415 are both good at doing this in plain English without a lot of word salad jargon that can be hard to follow and confusing.

 

[bud16415]

This is a really important point. The marketing for "high contrast" screens implies that the screen creates better contrast without mentioning that the contrast improvement is "perceived" by the human eye and not a measurable difference. That contrast perception is greatly influenced by personal preference. Given a choice, some prefer more convincing blacks at the expense of less bright whites whereas others would take brighter whites at the expense of more greyish blacks. So when someone asks for advice it's important to try to understand their personal preferences and offer potential solutions that best fit them as opposed to what we may prefer for ourselves. @fierce_gt and @bud16415 are both good at doing this in plain English without a lot of word salad jargon that can be hard to follow and confusing.

It is not just a preferred preference it is how that preference interacts with the media type and that then interacts with our eyes. The perceived blacks of a bright ANSI image (mixed bright and dark at the same time) are real, even if they can’t be measured by a meter. Many projectors that allow for professional calibration allow the calibrator to assign two presets even. Where a bright image like sports can benefit a lot by the eyes perception of black against a lot of brightness in the image, a dark night image wont. The automatic iris in many high end projectors is an attempt to adjust the projectors iris at the same time our eyes iris is adjusting in the other direction. Trying to give us the best of both worlds.

Dave is also correct some people are so very bothered by the very ending of the movie when the credits roll and the screen is mostly black and they then see the same black the light meter would have told them they were getting all along. Just like people obsess over black bars left unmasked because they betray what the eyes are otherwise perceiving as black. Other people in fact most people don’t try and understand it and don’t watch the black bars they watch the movie and enjoy the perceived blacks.

IMO there is a case to be made for not understanding any of this if movie enjoyment is your goal.