# The official SeymourAV center stage screen thread!



## ss9001

^^

What the title says. Some pretty attractive pricing, but would like to know how they compare to the brand names in the accoustic transparent market, even the new SMX brand.


Any help is appreciated. If someone has experience and wants to PM me, feel free or post here.

TIA


ss9001


----------



## mlbrand

ss9001,


I bought some Phifer 4500 screen material from SeymourAV, and am very impressed with both the material and the service from them. The material was priced fairly, was shipped promptly and looks great. I built my screen myself, and SeymourAV was very helpful with some good tips on how to do it.


Here's a link to another thread here on AVS that has comments from others on the Phifer 4500. Bulldogger is using the screen material too, and has been posting on how his DIY screen is progressing. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post10446282 


Good luck,


Mike


----------



## chillinintheoc

Hey ss9001,


Take a look at my post below about SeymourAV.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7&page=2&pp=30 



I can tell you that I have been doing a lot research on acoustic transparent screens and this material and Customer service from SeymourAV ROCKS!!....It looks so much better then the brand names that are out there, And don't forget they cost 5X as much as the SeymourAV dose...The SMX and the SeymourAV side by side looks the same...but with the cost and customer service....I had to go with SeymourAV.


Look at my post and you can see some photos as well.


----------



## Bulldogger

I am quite happy with the service I have gotten as well. I do not think you can tell the SW4500 and SMX720 apart with the naked eye. I am building a DIY electric screen with the material. I wish the electric screen from Seymour would have been available when I started. Still, I am enjoying building a screen. The whole project has been a lot of fun. As far as technical expertise, Chris is WAY ahead of everyone that I have discussed these types of materials with. He can discuss the rated stretch of the fabric in X and Y coordinates, acoustical transparency as well as the thickness of the various materials. I was a bit skeptical before I talked to him. He more than convinced me of his knowledge and being an engineer does not hurt either. Before all is said and done, the competition is going to be forced to copy Chris to remain competative. Great time for DIY or pre-fab acoustical screens. I attached a pic of my material with the sW4500 at the bottom and black 10% sW2390 at top. I will not need to mask the top. I used the 63 inch material for the screen section.


----------



## ss9001

For both of you,

how close is your seating position to the screen compared to screen size and what resolution are your PJ's?


Thanks

ss9001


----------



## mlbrand

I'm sitting about 11 feet from a 49" constant height screen setup, which makes for a 126" diagonal 2.37 screen, and a 100" diagonal 1.85 screen. My projector is a 720p Panasonic 900, which looks great with SD-DVD's and outstanding with HD-DVD's. I am feeding my video sources through and scaling with an Anthem D2 processor, and using a Prismasonic H1400 FE anamorphic lens to stretch my 2.37 movies.


----------



## mlbrand

BTW, it's nice to see our thread back, from where ever it went to. I was starting to think that Alzheimers had kicked in early!


----------



## DanOO00

I also bought a screen from SeymourAV after researching as much as I could online about AT screen materials. My original plan was to just pick up some material and DIY a roll up screen that would drop in front of my RPTV when I wanted to watch a movie, but I ended up with a made to order remote controlled electric roll up.


Customer service was top notch - Chris is a real nice guy to deal with- he took the time to walk me through the process, and was extremely helpful with all my requests- from my plans to DIY through to the final product details. The price was so reasonable that I decided to let them build the entire electric roll up screen for me. There are options to basically a la carte components from the material up to a fully assembled electric screen. My screen is an 80"wide 16x9 (with black backing due to the TV and other equipment behind the screen). I use it for a NEC 9PG Xtra CRT projector. I sit about 11 feet back, and the image and sound are great. I am very pleased with the service I received, and quality of their product.


Dan


----------



## mlbrand

DanOO,


I also placed my SeymourAV Phifer 4500 screen in front of my RPTV and sound system. This type of AT screen is great for this purpose. There are a lot of people like us who would like to use a projector and a screen, but only have one spot where it will work, and their current TV and speakers are already there. This is where an accoustically transparent roll down screen is the ONLY solution for setups like this. You can truly have the best of both worlds, by using your HDTV for every day viewing, and a projector and AT screen setup for movies and special events.


SeymourAV is the only company I am aware of who is currently selling an electric roll down screen using the Phifer 4500 AT material. With the quality and price of his electric screens, Chris has really hit a home run!


----------



## Mark P

Where do you get pricing and specs? I know the Phifer warehouse here in Portland sells it for $40 a lineal yard through a blinds/ shades dealer but when I was checking out the 5% openess factor it was driving my Audyssey system crazy as compared to the 7% and 10% openess of other products like SmX and Screen research. When placing it in front of one speaker in the front soundstage it was saying that speaker was out of phase and changing the frequency response quite a bit. Is this offered in 7% and 10% openess?


----------



## mlbrand

Mark P,


Go to SeymourAV and in the upper right of this web page click on STORE for pricing and ARTICLES for specs. I'm sure that Chris would be very willing to discuss the audio testing and specs with you if you want to email him.


I don't have an auto EQ like Audyssey in my system anymore, but I am very pleased with the sound quality of movies using this screen in front of my speakers. I am using an Anthem D2 processor, a Sunfire Cinema 7 amp, and Rocket 850's as front main speakers, and the Rocket "Bigfoot" center channel.


----------



## Mark P




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Mark P,
> 
> 
> Go to SeymourAV and in the upper right of this web page click on STORE for pricing and ARTICLES for specs. I'm sure that Chris would be very willing to discuss the audio testing and specs with you if you want to email him.
> 
> 
> I don't have an auto EQ like Audyssey in my system anymore, but I am very pleased with the sound quality of movies using this screen in front of my speakers. I am using an Anthem D2 processor, a Sunfire Cinema 7 amp, and Rocket 850's as front main speakers, and the Rocket "Bigfoot" center channel.



2.5 db @ 10k, no wonder it was playing heck with Audyessey. Im curious who lab tested the gain at 1.16


Can Chris come to the forums for questions and such like the rest of the owners or reps like Screen Research, SMX, Carada and the rest or are you his rep?


----------



## Gerry S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark P* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Where do you get pricing and specs? I know the Phifer warehouse here in Portland sells it for $40 a lineal yard through a blinds/ shades dealer but when I was checking out the 5% openess factor it was driving my Audyssey system crazy as compared to the 7% and 10% openess of other products like SmX and Screen research. When placing it in front of one speaker in the front soundstage it was saying that speaker was out of phase and changing the frequency response quite a bit. Is this offered in 7% and 10% openess?



Let's try to keep this thread open by not discussing pricing. Please edit your post.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark P* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Where do you get pricing and specs? I know the Phifer warehouse here in Portland sells it for $xx a lineal yard through a blinds/ shades dealer but when I was checking out the 5% openess factor it was driving my Audyssey system crazy as compared to the 7% and 10% openess of other products like XxX and Screen research. When placing it in front of one speaker in the front soundstage it was saying that speaker was out of phase and changing the frequency response quite a bit. Is this offered in 7% and 10% openess?



Hi Mark -


I don't have experience with the out-board Audysseys, but the built-in MultEQ in the Denons work without issue. I know the separate Audyssey is a much more sophisticated tool, but the Phifer 4500 has been in several Denon systems: two 3806s, one 4306 or 4806 - can't remember which, and their big 5805, which should come with a built-in hand truck. All but one were center-only-behind-the-screen systems. None of them failed polarity check.


In my system, I've had (polarity) success with other room correction systems. The TacT I had for a while passed polarity checks just fine (only my center channel is behind the screen), but I personally don't like the TacT. Good methodology, but just way too much. There aren't target curves to go for and as a do-no-harm audiophile, I really didn't like how much futzing with the mids and highs the system allows you to use. It made everything behave unrecognizably each time I powered up. I'd get it cal'd to sound great and then later it just sounded completely wrong.


While the science behind the Audyssey is solid, I'm much more skeptical of DSP above the mid-bass range of, say, 300Hz. Correcting for room modes 300Hz. And I'd argue the former is a realistic problem to fight with DSP and the latter is a can of worms.


I compared the Meridian and Lexicon room correction systems, and I preferred the Lexicon. Both only address


----------



## Mark P




> Quote:
> The woven Center Stage screen fabric has the highest gain on the market, providing you with a sharp, bright image from edge to edge. It does not require any EQ, will not audibly comb filter, and attenuates the sound on average two decibels above 8 kHz.



Im not sure where I got 10K either, after revisiting, and finding the smoothed graph its more at 5k.


The Audyessey was on a Denon 5805 ( yes the refrigerator cart one) which is pretty fun to play around with when dealing with these AT screens. The amount of testing I did with Phifer screens was pretty intense with the Audyessey while waiting for the real tests to be performed. The funny thing is, its a pretty reliable tool in telling attenuations and combfiltering ( what else is going to make a speaker out of phase in controlled situations?) regardless, all 3 of my speakers are going behind the screen so any effects the sunshades have would be simular.................well that is until you tow in your left/rights. Did you do any testing with the 5% open fabric when speakers are properly towed? The results would be interesting if you have them. I know what mine were.


By the way, the 5% open weave failed polarity 100% of the time, didnt matter the position vertical/horizontal, 1", 2", 20" away. Now the 7% (SmX) never failed polarity which is helping in my decision which has not been made up even a year later. Who knows, someone might be introducing an even better product in the coming months and I am in no hurry and open to all products.


Are you planning on selling the 7% and 10% openess Shearweaves as well, or just sticking with the 5% open and where was it you came up with the 1.16 gain out of curiosity. I am kind of curious about the claims of combfiltering as well since speaker grille cloth combfilters, do you have unsmoothed charts to confirm no combfiltering?


----------



## richlo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> DanOO,
> 
> 
> I also placed my SeymourAV Phifer 4500 screen in front of my RPTV and sound system. This type of AT screen is great for this purpose. There are a lot of people like us who would like to use a projector and a screen, but only have one spot where it will work, and their current TV and speakers are already there. This is where an accoustically transparent roll down screen is the ONLY solution for setups like this. You can truly have the best of both worlds, by using your HDTV for every day viewing, and a projector and AT screen setup for movies and special events.
> 
> 
> SeymourAV is the only company I am aware of who is currently selling an electric roll down screen using the Phifer 4500 AT material. With the quality and price of his electric screens, Chris has really hit a home run!



any wave issues?? I just cant have waves..I currently have an Elite Cinetesion that i have drop in front of my tv, but unfortunately my center sits behind it..and Im looking to make that change to something like this..


----------



## ss9001

Chris,

Have u tested with Pioneer's MCACC auto-EQ?

BTW- I've been out of touch for a few days, so still plan on calling u as I mentioned in my email. Work got in the way









ss9001


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *richlo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> any wave issues?? I just cant have waves..I currently have an Elite Cinetesion that i have drop in front of my tv, but unfortunately my center sits behind it..and Im looking to make that change to something like this..



I don't have any wave issues with the Phifer 4500 screen material. I built my own screen with this material, and attaching it to a non-flexing roller pipe and getting it straight on the roller seemed to eliminate any potential wave problems. I don't even have any weight on the bottom, besides the black velvet strip I sewed on. I'm sure that SeymourAV has much better equipment to mount the screens properly than I did! I also believe that tab tensioning is an upcoming option, according to their web site.


From my experience I think that the Phifer 4500 screen material is one of the more wave resistant screen products out there.


----------



## ss9001

From talking to Chris last week, I trust his judgment on the audio side, since he understood the nature of the beast using dipolar Magnepan planar speakers which I use. Not many HT dealers that I've dealt with do.


All I know is that this brand intrigues me, since it's making owning a projection system with my room layout & needs more feasible than the high - priced alternatives.


I have a few more questions on viewing distance, screen size & using with 1080p to get sorted out, but I'm excited!

ss9001


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark P* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Im not sure where I got 10K either, after revisiting, and finding the smoothed graph its more at 5k.
> 
> 
> The Audyessey was on a Denon 5805 ( yes the refrigerator cart one) which is pretty fun to play around with when dealing with these AT screens. The amount of testing I did with Phifer screens was pretty intense with the Audyessey while waiting for the real tests to be performed. The funny thing is, its a pretty reliable tool in telling attenuations and combfiltering ( what else is going to make a speaker out of phase in controlled situations?) regardless, all 3 of my speakers are going behind the screen so any effects the sunshades have would be simular.................well that is until you tow in your left/rights. Did you do any testing with the 5% open fabric when speakers are properly towed? The results would be interesting if you have them. I know what mine were.
> 
> 
> By the way, the 5% open weave failed polarity 100% of the time, didnt matter the position vertical/horizontal, 1", 2", 20" away. Now the 7% (XxX) never failed polarity which is helping in my decision which has not been made up even a year later. Who knows, someone might be introducing an even better product in the coming months and I am in no hurry and open to all products.
> 
> 
> Are you planning on selling the 7% and 10% openess Shearweaves as well, or just sticking with the 5% open and where was it you came up with the 1.16 gain out of curiosity. I am kind of curious about the claims of combfiltering as well since speaker grille cloth combfilters, do you have unsmoothed charts to confirm no combfiltering?



Hi Mark -


Those results were 1/6 octave smoothed to reflect audibility, but 1/24 octave results were also shown in the test results nearly midway down the articles page. I say "will not audibly comb filter" because of your point 1) that even some grill fabric will measurably comb filter, but 2) high-Q comb filtering is not audible - smoothing to reflect psycho-acoustical effects will show this, 3) comb filtering in the top two octaves (>5kHz) is especially inaudible, and 3) all four woven solar shade-style AT screens I have measured practically identical.


Comb filtering is much more severe for most MTM center speakers that are horizontally aligned. Those speakers, w/ AT screens or not, often give auto-EQ routines polarity fits unless they are only measured on the center axis. I encourage people with AT screens to at least try vertically orienting their center channel to improve (sometimes cancel) midrange comb filtering / lobing across different seats.


I only have my center behind the screen. The L/R are towed (toed? toad?) for perfect 2-channel listening (vinyl, etc.) This allowed me to isolate any effect the screen had on the speaker. The TacT (full freq DSP) passed polarity fine. The Meridian passed polarity fine. The Lexicon's RoomEQ is just a roll of the dice; independent of screen up/down or channel. And the four Denons with Audyssey installations I know of all reported to test fine. I researched other 5% woven AT screen owners and didn't find any evidence of polarity issues, either.


I don't recommend towing (toeing?) in the L/R speakers behind AT material. If the angle is significant, the drivers won't have open air paths to the seating. You want to fire straight through any AT screen in general. If you really have to angle the L/R, get them out from behind the screen to the sides. Ideal angle of incidence = 0.


What center channel are you using? Some speakers have inverted-phase tweeters, so when Lexicon users encounter stubborn polarity "failures" and they know everything is wired perfectly, Lexicon advises to ignore the flag and use the cal results; the DSP will still work as designed.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *richlo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> any wave issues?? I just cant have waves..I currently have an Elite Cinetesion that i have drop in front of my tv, but unfortunately my center sits behind it..and Im looking to make that change to something like this..



If your perspective is from other non-tensioned screens with supported fabrics (reinforced non-AT vinyl or woven AT screens), then it is very reasonably flat. Using velvet trim to get the light absorptive benefits makes flatness harder and materials and methods were changed to get it - again, very reasonably flat.


That said, it's not a tensioned screen. It's not drum tight. If your perspective is from tensioned screens, then what some may call flat may not satisfy you.


Tab-tensioned designs are currently being built as alphas.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ss9001* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> From talking to Chris last week, I trust his judgment on the audio side, since he understood the nature of the beast using dipolar Magnepan planar speakers which I use. Not many HT dealers that I've dealt with do.
> 
> 
> All I know is that this brand intrigues me, since it's making owning a projection system with my room layout & needs more feasible than the high - priced alternatives.
> 
> 
> I have a few more questions on viewing distance, screen size & using with 1080p to get sorted out, but I'm excited!
> 
> ss9001



ss,


I agree that a SeymourAV screen makes having a projector system in our multi-purpose rooms much more feasible. It's great to be able to drop a screen down in front of your existing TV and speakers, and not have to change your room layout at all. The affordable price helps as well!


You SHOULD be excited, because if you have not experienced a projector system in your home before, you will be blown away! My kids USED to be impressed with my 64" HDTV, but now they think it's too small for movies! (and they are right)


----------



## Bulldogger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *richlo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> any wave issues?? I just cant have waves..I currently have an Elite Cinetesion that i have drop in front of my tv, but unfortunately my center sits behind it..and Im looking to make that change to something like this..



I am building a DIY electric screen. Decided to change motors so my project is stalled. I am working with Chris and plan to experiment with some tensioning methods if I get waves. I hate waves.


----------



## Mark P




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bulldogger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am building a DIY electric screen. Decided to change motors so my project is stalled. I am working with Chris and plan to experiment with some tensioning methods if I get waves. I hate waves.



These have been around for years now, they are blackout shades and I have 4 of them. They have a piece of 1/8"thick, 1/2" wide steel slid into a sewed sleeve. Use industrial velcro if you dont have access to a sewing machine. Tensioners are terrible and produce waves every time as do the cheapo rollers that slightly sag and come with some shades


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bulldogger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am building a DIY electric screen. Decided to change motors so my project is stalled. I am working with Chris and plan to experiment with some tensioning methods if I get waves. I hate waves.



Bulldogger,


I really don't think you will have any problems with significant waves as long as you get your screen attached to your roller straight. I know that you spent a lot of time finding a rigid roller pipe, so that won't be an issue!


----------



## oman321

Hey folks,


Just picked up some material for a screen from Chris looking foward to receiving it. I looked at Chillinintheoc's link up above and his shots look really nice. Just wondering if anyone else has any screenshots of this material in action. Would love to see them, thanks.


----------



## cubesys

has anyone used this material in a fixed screen application? If so can you give some specifics such as the type of projector and distances.


I am looking for an SMX material replacement since it now only sells as a full kit.


thanks

Itai


----------



## oman321

I'll be using it in a fixed frame application. Unfortunately I wont have it set up for a little while longer though. Have you seen the site? seymourav.com the material appears to be the same as of the second SMX run, not sure how diferrent it is now. Above and on the site their is a pdf link for audio tests done by Chris with his material and SMX material and accoustically they performed the same. The prices are great and depending on the size screen you need you have an option of going with a 63" or a 98" wide cut.


As far as response time, I got email replies from Chris the same day I sent them to him. I even got confirmation of shipping the same day I ordered my material. So far its been a great experience.


----------



## KingCreole

If I go AT this is where my business goes too.


From all accounts this appears to me to be the best of the 2 companies as far as product, integrity and service.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oman321* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hey folks,
> 
> 
> Just picked up some material for a screen from Chris looking foward to receiving it. I looked at Chillinintheoc's link up above and his shots look really nice. Just wondering if anyone else has any screenshots of this material in action. Would love to see them, thanks.



Oman,


I may try to get some screen shots this weekend, and will try to post them when I do. The first screen shots I tried did not turn out well, so I got some tips on how to do it right, (tripod, use timer, over/under expose) and will see how they turn out this time. I should have taken some shots of the "Dreamgirls" HD-DVD I rented from Netflix last weekend. The PQ was outstanding on my setup, as was the audio. Definitely a "thumbs up" movie!


----------



## Bulldogger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ss9001* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> For both of you,
> 
> how close is your seating position to the screen compared to screen size and what resolution are your PJ's?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> ss9001



I should be about 13 feet back from a 120 wide screen 2:35, JVC RS1


----------



## Bulldogger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bulldogger,
> 
> 
> I really don't think you will have any problems with significant waves as long as you get your screen attached to your roller straight. I know that you spent a lot of time finding a rigid roller pipe, so that won't be an issue!



Yeah, roller deflection is about the last thing that I am concerned with







. No screen material on the market could make my roller sag.


----------



## oman321




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Oman,
> 
> 
> I may try to get some screen shots this weekend, and will try to post them when I do. The first screen shots I tried did not turn out well, so I got some tips on how to do it right, (tripod, use timer, over/under expose) and will see how they turn out this time. I should have taken some shots of the "Dreamgirls" HD-DVD I rented from Netflix last weekend. The PQ was outstanding on my setup, as was the audio. Definitely a "thumbs up" movie!




Sweet, I'd appreciate that. The Mrs. and I have been wanting to see that movie probably pick it up this weekend. Thanks for the effort on the pics.


----------



## oman321

Just got my material delivered today, a day sooner than expected. The material was packaged extremely well (this will allow for easy storage) and I was given an extra foot, I believe because it was the start of a new roll. This is great because I want to go as large as I can with the space that I have and this helps to allow for that.


Looking foward to get things rolling and this certainly gets me motivated.


----------



## mlbrand

OK, I've got some screenshots posted in my gallery. These are from some scenes of the HD-DVD movie "Pitch Black". Here's the link to my gallery.

mlbrand's gallery & screenshots


----------



## oman321

Screenshots look awesome. Thanks for posting.


----------



## ildigital

I've just bought my SeymourAV material for my future DIY screen and I would like to point out that the service is really amazing: prompt email responses, very good packaging and fast delivery.

Chris is really helpful for any kind of problem you may have with your screen.

SeymourAV is truly highly recommended.


Just my two cents


Davide


----------



## Bulldogger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OK, I've got some screenshots posted in my gallery. These are from some scenes of the HD-DVD movie "Pitch Black". Here's the link to my gallery.
> 
> mlbrand's gallery & screenshots



Great job! What type of masking are you using? I know Chris will sew on black velvet. I am painting my masking on. Chris is adding the tensioning system to my screen,DIY roll down model. I am going to experiment with that and see how it works.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bulldogger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Great job! What type of masking are you using? I know Chris will sew on black velvet. I am painting my masking on. Chris is adding the tensioning system to my screen,DIY roll down model. I am going to experiment with that and see how it works.



Thanks! I am using black velvet on the top and bottom of the screen and spray painted flat black Krylon on the sides. I am going to try using some of the black backing material to mask the sides 1.85 movies, when I get time to do it. I will probably paint the backing material with a light coat of the Krylon as well, and use velcro to hold the masking material on the screen.


If you want to see some pictures of my screen and DIY roller tensioning strap go here SeymourAV screenshots and scroll down to the last two pictures (Mike from OK). My screen is very accessible, so it's really easy to manually roll up and down.


----------



## chriscmore

Here is another method of attaching a screen to a fixed frame wall. We've done this a few times and it works pretty slick. Here is a picture of just the screen trimmed in 2" velvet borders. This one has the fabric tilted 15 degrees to handle higher pixel densities for the future.











The quandry is then how to attached it to a wall or fixed framing. What this customer is doing is building a false wall out and covering the framing with black GoM fabric. With Velcro bonded and stitched on the back of the screen, they then just need to attach the mating velcro to the framed opening. Here is a picture of the backside of the screen where you can see the 1.5" wide Velcro, stitched to the screen.











Here is the screen rolled up (it's a fat roll due to the thickness of the Velcro), and the mating adhesive Velcro included. While the mating Velcro is adhesive backed, you'd want to use some staples to make sure it doesn't move over time.











The installation should be a breeze, with a no-brainer way of adjusting to make sure it's drum tight. Hopefully we can get some of the installation pictures from the customer and see how it goes on the other end. But I thought with all the DIY "issues" we face out there, folks may find it interesting.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## dannyz

Thanks for posting the pics, Chris. You have earned my business!










Now I just have to get the cabinet guy to hurry so I have a final measurement for the screen to give to you. Take care!


----------



## Bulldogger

My screen was delivered by Fed-ex. It was mangled with the fabric twisted and dirty and the tube doubled over upon itself. Fed-ex guy dropped it off and ran to his truck and took off! My subdivision is gated with only one way out. I jumped in my Jeep and waited for him to make the loop through the subdivision to exit. He was really speeding but I stopped him. He asked me how he could help me? I told him that I could not accept the package because of how badly it was damaged. His response," I didn't not do that. You must have done that because it wasn't like that when I delievered it, I would have never delivered a package like that." Can you believe that?!! Finally after a heated argument, he agreed to take the package back only if I would sign for it. I refused at first but finally signed my name with REFUSED written in. Of course Chris is first rate and is taking care of all issues for me. Not his fault, Fed-ex sucks. Chris was easy to reach and quickly jumped on top of the situation. I think you are really defined by how you handle bad situations and Chris does that well.


----------



## mlbrand

Chris,


Slick new screen idea! I can't imagine having DIY get any simpler than that, and as usual it looks like it's very well thought out. I would bet that this will be a very popular screen option, nice work.


Mike


----------



## Omnius

I'm building my false wall today and hopefully will have some pictures of the install after the weekend. First I have to get the package from FedEx though. I had to put in a formal request for them to "hold" it at the facility because yesterday when I called with the doortag to find out when I could go pick it up I was told that FedEx home packages do not go back to the terminal overnight but rather stay with the drivers. So that kept me from getting the screen yesterday. But, if it is at least not mangled, I'll be happy.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Omnius* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm building my false wall today and hopefully will have some pictures of the install after the weekend. First I have to get the package from FedEx though. I had to put in a formal request for them to "hold" it at the facility because yesterday when I called with the doortag to find out when I could go pick it up I was told that FedEx home packages do not go back to the terminal overnight but rather stay with the drivers. So that kept me from getting the screen yesterday. But, if it is at least not mangled, I'll be happy.



Because that Velcro-backed screen needed to roll up into such a fat roll, I used a shipping tube that is around 8" diameter and about 1/4" thick solid walls. I think it weighed more than the screen. If gorillas hand carried it down to you, it wouldn't be damaged.


Of course if anything were less than perfect let me know.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Omnius

Yeah, the package looked perfectly fine when I got it. I haven't opened it yet because I don't want to damage it myself. I figured inside that tube was the safest place to keep it while I'm constructing the wall. I should be ready to open it up and mount it tomorrow sometime.


----------



## Omnius

Here is a shot of the screen mounted. The wall is not finished yet, but you can get the idea of how it will look/work. With a little effort I was able to get the screen what I would consider "very flat" with the exception of the bottom left hand corner. There are some definite wrinkles I was not able to get out with the amount of effort I was willing to spend. I will have to take the screen back down again to continue construction, so I did not want to spend too much time on it. When it goes up for the final time, I will spend as much time and effort as required to get it perfect.


Also, please don't poke fun at the framing.







I am a computer scientist, not a carpenter. The bottom portion of the wall started out in life as a riser that I decided not to use, so that is why the beams are running the wrong way. The rest was constructed out of leftover 2x6's. They are overkill for a false wall, but I already had them so my cost was essentially zero.


----------



## oman321

Omnius,


Thanks for posting the pic of your mounted screen, what a great yet simple solution.


Do you have a projector yet? If you do, are you able to shoot any pics of it in action?


Don't worry about the framing, looks fine and it works.


----------



## Omnius

Yeah, I have a Sanyo Z4 that I've had for about a year. You can't see it in that picture, but behind that screen was just a white rectangle on the wall that I have been previously using as a screen. I watched a movie with the theater as is last night just to test it out and it looked very good. With an image projected on the screen I was unable to see the minor wrinkles I mentioned before even though I knew exactly what I was looking for and where they were. So I am very pleased with that.


I have no experience with taking pictures of projected images, but I do have a tripod for my camera so I'll see what I can do when I get the time. I probably need to finish the area up so it can do its best. The wall directly behind the screen is still flat white, so I do get some light bouncing around back there at the moment. I have some black Linacoustic that will be going up there soon, so I'll wait to take pictures of it in action until after I get that up.


----------



## Bulldogger

Anyone else have pics of their screen?


----------



## chriscmore

We will be exhibiting at this year's CEDIA Expo in Denver in booth 3305, so if any of you are planning to attend please stop by and say hi. I couldn't afford a booth babe, but our best looking person Steve has agreed to wear a wig, maybe even shave. Jim said he'd wear a thong if I let him go, but that would be wrong on too many levels.


We'll be featuring a Center Stage screen (what else, eh?), but in the new tab-tensioned design which will become a standard feature. More details on that will come out shortly.


Looking forward to seeing you...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## ss9001

Great news, Chris!


Means you're coming along as a solid manufacturer. Also, I'm glad to hear the tab tensioned system is becoming standardized. I haven't forgotten about your product; just been pre-occupied this summer and trying to decide how to proceed.


I did plan on calling you soon, so I can update you then.


ss9001


----------



## dannyz

Look forward to seeing the new design Chris! One of these days I'll finally have my room painted and stage built.


----------



## chriscmore

FYI, an article I wrote on center channel design is now out and linkable through avs here or here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=879041 


I looked at several of the compromises that are made when redundant drivers are used horizontally in center channels. There are better, less expensive alternatives out there that can yield you a more consistent response across all of your seating. This "Thinking Vertically" makes a case for why serious audiophiles put acoustical transparency as a requirement for their screens, but also showcases best practice for everyone.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Nedtsc

chris,


do you actually loose resolution since ther are perforations on the screen? (127 inch film sitting 9 ft away for both 720p and 1080p viewing).


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Ned -


If "127 film" means a 127" diagonal 2.35 aspect ratio, then the screen would measure 49.7"x116.9". Assuming a constant height setup, a 720p pixel would measure 0.069" square each. A 1080p pixel would measure 0.046" square. The holes in a common microperf screen measure 0.020". And finally the holes in the woven Center Stage screen fabric measure 0.007"x0.008".


With regard to the woven fabric, your pixels would (at worst) be 6x larger than the holes in the fabric. This means that you could only lose a portion within the pixel, never any full pixels themselves and no loss in resolution.


If I got your screen dimensions right, your pixels versus the holes should look like this:










You really only get into trouble when you pack your pixel density unreasonably high. Tilting can alleviate any moire effect, but if you're trying to pack a 1080p image on to a very small screen (for a projection - say,


----------



## Nedtsc

Chris , it is 127 inch wide. Is your screen angular or reflective? What does the 15 deg angle do?


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Ned -


A 127" wide image would have pixels about 9% larger than I illustrated below. You would be that much further from any issues with the holes in the fabric.


The fabric is reflective, but with a wide viewing width of 160 degrees, would be considered a "scatter" type screen like is found with unity-gain screens.


A 15 degree tilt randomizes the hole structures with regard to the fixed panel display's pixels. By effectively randomizing the interaction of the two patterns, moire can be reduced or eliminated. Realistically, it's a very uncommon effect, and only a concern for high pixel density images. As projectors' pixel fill ratios continue to increase and their structure becoming more smooth (e.g. Smoothscreen), it is less and less of an issue. Still, an easy fix.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Nuclear Waste

Just received my SeymourAV screen. Very well packaged for transit. On the customer service front, Chris has been fantastic-- timely updates and great answers to my silly questions. I highly recommend this company.


Now a question for the group: I got just the screen with velcro, no motors or rollers (like this: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...post10743210 ). It'll be mounted to a lightweight frame and I plan to place it about 24" from my front wall.


I'm hoping others may have already done this and can provide a smart solution: What is the best method for placing the screen?


Should I just hang it from the ceiling with eyebolts (would I need to secure the bottom somehow?), or maybe create some sort of a frame that attaches to the front wall of the room? I'm looking for a "clean and uncluttered" installation, there is no other framing or anything at the front of my room, just a 6" tall stage.


Thanks!


- Nuke


----------



## Nedtsc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi Ned -
> 
> 
> A 127" wide image would have pixels about 9% larger than I illustrated below. You would be that much further from any issues with the holes in the fabric.
> 
> 
> The fabric is reflective, but with a wide viewing width of 160 degrees, would be considered a "scatter" type screen like is found with unity-gain screens.
> 
> 
> A 15 degree tilt randomizes the hole structures with regard to the fixed panel display's pixels. By effectively randomizing the interaction of the two patterns, moire can be reduced or eliminated. Realistically, it's a very uncommon effect, and only a concern for high pixel density images. As projectors' pixel fill ratios continue to increase and their structure becoming more smooth (e.g. Smoothscreen), it is less and less of an issue. Still, an easy fix.
> 
> 
> Cheer,
> 
> Chris



By being retro reflective that would reduce the gain since my projector is ceiling mount. I was hopping that it would be angular reflective since I'm coming from a high power.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> By being retro reflective that would reduce the gain since my projector is ceiling mount. I was hopping that it would be angular reflective since I'm coming from a high power.



Ned -


I never said it was "retro" reflective. It is reflective, or angular, but of such a high diffusion that it is closer to being a "scatter" screen like unity gain (1.0) screens are. Ceiling mounted projectors perform better with this fabric.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Bulldogger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nuclear Waste* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just received my SeymourAV screen. Very well packaged for transit. On the customer service front, Chris has been fantastic-- timely updates and great answers to my silly questions. I highly recommend this company.
> 
> 
> Now a question for the group: I got just the screen with velcro, no motors or rollers (like this: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...post10743210 ). It'll be mounted to a lightweight frame and I plan to place it about 24" from my front wall.
> 
> 
> I'm hoping others may have already done this and can provide a smart solution: What is the best method for placing the screen?
> 
> 
> Should I just hang it from the ceiling with eyebolts (would I need to secure the bottom somehow?), or maybe create some sort of a frame that attaches to the front wall of the room? I'm looking for a "clean and uncluttered" installation, there is no other framing or anything at the front of my room, just a 6" tall stage.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> - Nuke



Either way will work. You could also build a frame and build, "feet" for it and have the whole thing sit on the floor. There are several ways to do it.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nuclear Waste* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just received my SeymourAV screen. Very well packaged for transit. On the customer service front, Chris has been fantastic-- timely updates and great answers to my silly questions. I highly recommend this company.
> 
> 
> Now a question for the group: I got just the screen with velcro, no motors or rollers (like this: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...post10743210 ). It'll be mounted to a lightweight frame and I plan to place it about 24" from my front wall.
> 
> 
> I'm hoping others may have already done this and can provide a smart solution: What is the best method for placing the screen?
> 
> 
> Should I just hang it from the ceiling with eyebolts (would I need to secure the bottom somehow?), or maybe create some sort of a frame that attaches to the front wall of the room? I'm looking for a "clean and uncluttered" installation, there is no other framing or anything at the front of my room, just a 6" tall stage.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> - Nuke



Building a frame out from the wall would be the most uncluttered look from your seating positions, but would most likely make it harder to setup or access speakers placed behind the screen. Hanging the screen from the ceiling with eyebolts is the easiest method, and would also look less cluttered from the sides of the room. I hung my DIY SeymourAV rolldown screen from eyehooks in the ceiling, and the small chains and eyehooks don't bother me at all. You could even paint them black and the hardware would blend in even more. It really gets down to personal preference and the need for unencumbered access behind the screen.


----------



## Bulldogger

I have spent a couple of days viewing the Seymour Center Stage screen material with the JVC RS1. Bear in mind that I am not videophile but do know how to recognize certain artifacts. I was primarily looking for moire. I put of a few test patterns and watched two movies one HD-DVD, "Dead Silence," and one regular DVD, "Nomad." I tried zooming the image from about 110 wide to down to about 80 inches. I could not detect ANY moire. Also I spent a couple of hours evaluating the sound quality of the material. Personally, I think it is excellent. At first, I heard a slight bit of comb filtering with the material very close to the speakers, about 2 inches in front. However, moving the material to about 8 inches eliminated the effect I was hearing completely. This material is a winner. I am very pleased with it. As some of you may know from the DIY screen forum, I am building an electric screen. The decision to change motors to a Somfy motor has caused a delay as I have been waiting for parts from Somfy which are enroute via UPS. I used some stands that I have that have holes in the middle and ran a metal rod between them. To view the material, I just unrolled it between the stands and wrapped around the bar . This was the only method I had to view the material at the moment. Even with such a compromised set-up, the performance was still great.


----------



## Bulldogger

Another observation I have made is that even hanging on a bar, I see almost no waves with this material. There is a very very slight wave in one area but even that is hardly noticeable. This is markedly better performance than the other material that I was using. I expect that when it is mounted, it is likely I will have no waves even without adding tension to the screen. "Nomad" is a good movie to view because of the pans of the large open plains in which the movie is set.


----------



## oman321

You might have previously mentioned Bulldogger but since you were testing for moire do you have your material tilted at a 15 degree angle?


Glad to hear that it performed well none the less...


----------



## Bulldogger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oman321* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You might have previously mentioned Bulldogger but since you were testing for moire do you have your material tilted at a 15 degree angle?
> 
> 
> Glad to hear that it performed well none the less...



No tilt and no moire.


----------



## ss9001

Chris,

Do you have any photos of the tab tensioning you could post or send in a PM if we asked?


TIA

ss9001


----------



## Nedtsc

I've a chance to play with a sample today. Interesting material with no moire at all. I'm using an HP right now even thought with my ceiling mounted PJ the Center Stage is significantly dimmer than HP.


Chris, anyway you can increase the gain on this screen?


----------



## chriscmore

Very soon. We had several screens come through last week and will have to be finished up this week - four of which are tabbed and will be photo-worthy.


Also been crunched recently with CEDIA prep and some operations planning.


Cheers,

Chris



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ss9001* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Do you have any photos of the tab tensioning you could post or send in a PM if we asked?
> 
> 
> TIA
> 
> ss9001


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Ned -


The gain of the fabric couldn't be increased without paying other costs to the image. To have a gain equal to the HP, such a fabric would have to have even higher gain on the threads due to the loss through the holes. Cranking up the gain that high would decrease viewing angle, increase color shifting, reduce color and brightness uniformity, and lay fertile ground for sparkles since it's series of threads and not a sheet of vinyl.


The HP was designed for business use and isn't really appropriate for home theaters in my opinion. There are many great screen fabrics out there that I would happily cheer for, but I have to say I don't understand the HP's popularity for HT use.


I have some groundwork for other screen materials, but chasing after >2.5 gain screens isn't on the list.


Cheers,

Chris




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've a chance to play with a sample today. Interesting material with no moire at all. I'm using an HP right now even thought with my ceiling mounted PJ the Center Stage is significantly dimmer than HP.
> 
> 
> Chris, anyway you can increase the gain on this screen?


----------



## PhillipD

Chris what is your address from where you ship from I can do a Fedex quote myself to Canada with the zip code. I recieve an e-mail from you about a screen already.


Thanks

Phil


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Phil -


PM and email sent.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## PhillipD

Thanks Chris for the fast reply. I too have done as much reading on AT screens what I can and have decided that SeymourAV has my business when the time comes. For those of you who don't know I will be shipping this to Canada via Fedrecks and hope that it will arrive safe and sound for the distance it will be coming. I called them today and the cost of shipping alone is over $200, but for the product and the very reasonable costs I think I will be getting a as good or better product than I can in Canada at a better cost.


I am looking at getting a 109" diagonal screen for infront of my plasma and like most of you I have some speakers that will be covered, 5 to be exact. My main question is, do any of you have the electric screen without the case? I am going to case it in with a wood structure anyway and if I do not get the case I can save the cost of shipping basically. Or do you think that getting the case is just a better way to go with the screen? Any input would be greatly appericiated, maybe I'll give Chris a call.


Thanks

Phil


----------



## oman321

That is what Chillinintheoc did. Here is his thread
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=747487&page=2 


Check out his pics in post 42 it shows how he did the screen in soffited enclosure.


----------



## chriscmore

Pictures being worth a few words and all, here is a snapshot of what a caseless screen looks like. The first picture is of the motor side, which mounts in a custom rubber mount that keys inside an L-bracket that ships attached. The rubber mount must be keyed inside the L-bracket for robustness, but the L-bracket can be unbolted and rotated to any 90 degree side you want to bolt to the vertical or horizontal surface.











Note that this screen doesn't have all the tabs, the tensioning hardware or weight bar installed yet. The cables just roll up nicely with the roller bar, but I'll post more pictures of tensioning system seperately.


Here is the passive axis side. On this L-bracket is the keyed ball-bearing. It just slides off and on, being a cylindrical axle through the matching round hole.











The mounting screw locations can be +/- 1" due to the wide slots in the L-brackets. I'll post more detailed dimensions on the site soon, but if you plan on the mounting locations being the same width as the case, you'll be fine. The standard orientation is for the tabs, or ears, of the L-bracket to point out. If you need otherwise, please make sure you let me know; it's only an issue on the motor side.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## PhillipD

Thanks Chris,


That is exactly what I was looking for, the pics help very much. I think that would work for my application. Now just one other question, can a screen be made without the tab tensioning hardware? If so what it the preformance or wrinkeling effect without it as opposed to with it? Just thinking I may not need it if the material is heavy enough with the weight bar alone. That is if this is an option that is avaiable.


Thank you

Phillip


----------



## jerryg05495

I am in the process of planning a theater. I had plans to be in Iowa and contacted Chris at SeymourAV. I was able to stop by his place for a demo and see his facility. Chris was incredibly helpful, and I am extremely impressed with his knowledge and willingness to meet customers needs. I look forward to doing business with SeymourAV when I am ready to purchase.


Good luck to all with your theaters.


Jerry


----------



## dannyz

Has anyone tried putting a subwoofer behind one of these screens, along with their front and center channel speakers? My first thought would be that it would rattle the screen too much, but I think real theaters have their subwoofers behind the screens and I just got my theater chairs in and positioned and I have far less room than I planned on having for a sub in the back of the room


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannyz* /forum/post/11674829
> 
> 
> Has anyone tried putting a subwoofer behind one of these screens, along with their front and center channel speakers? My first thought would be that it would rattle the screen too much, but I think real theaters have their subwoofers behind the screens and I just got my theater chairs in and positioned and I have far less room than I planned on having for a sub in the back of the room



Yep. In fact I have two subwoofers behind my screen, and even with the subs cranked up to +3-5 dbs I have never detected any noticeable screen movement. Many people have subs behind their screens, and as long as there is plenty of "breathing room" around your screen you should not have a problem.


----------



## chriscmore

Jerry -


That was great fun. "The Weight" (ala _The Last Waltz_) and the apple pie were thoroughly memorable. The only thing I think we lacked was ice cream... (sorry)










When you're ready, a DIY fixed-frame kit would be the perfect solution. Let me know when you're back and needing some progress on that new room.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannyz* /forum/post/11674829
> 
> 
> Has anyone tried putting a subwoofer behind one of these screens, along with their front and center channel speakers? My first thought would be that it would rattle the screen too much, but I think real theaters have their subwoofers behind the screens and I just got my theater chairs in and positioned and I have far less room than I planned on having for a sub in the back of the room



Hi Danny -


The air permeability of the material is high enough that subs behind the screen are rarely an issue. If you park a part of the sub where you can feel a breeze (e.g. a port), up near the screen then you could vibrate the fabric. Generally 6"-12" or so is enough airspace so that only the most insane subs can move the material. It won't resonate with room modes or pressure waves. In fact, being acoustically transparent, it's more immune to room acoustics. I have an infinite baffle sub that pressurizes down to around 12Hz and while the windows are visibly flexing, the retractable screen doesn't.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Hi folks -


As an update, I wanted to give you the angle on what we call tilting.


I've only had two customers that have experienced moire by using the fabric in the typical non-tilted fashion. Both were using LCD projectors, which are more prone to artifacting with AT fabric due to their lower fill ratios and more defined pixel structures. By typical non-tilted fashion, I mean constructing the screen with the image cut from the material roll with the threads oriented as such (for scale, this is zoomed in, the piece measures appx 1.6" wide):










The fix for using this fabric with non-Panasonic LCD projectors is to construct the screen by cutting the material at an angle with respect to the roll. While there are a few other perfect angles, the one that results in the least waste is 15 degrees. The screen surface would then look like this:










I wanted to post these two pics and try to explain first what is meant by tilting the fabric. You aren't tilting the SCREEN in any way, or cutting anything other than the perfect rectangle for your image. It's just tilting the fixturing used to cut the screen. It's more difficult and wastey, but we went back to some projectors that didn't moire and determined that it still improved the image quality. Even though moire didn't exist (DLPs and Panasonic's smooth screen are the most immune artifacting), angling the material's thread directions reduced pixel structure, screen door effect, and smoothed out the image overall.


Having had to replace the unacceptable NON-tilted screens, we then only have positive reasons for tilting ALL screens. While it's an incremental cost increase, it's an incremental improvement for the quality of all images and neither consumers nor friendly manufacturers enjoy replacing product. Win, win, and win.


Happy holiday week!


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chas_w

Thanks for the update Chris...good to see this as a standard feature.


----------



## Omnius

I also have an infinite baffle sub setup behind my screen and I've only once been able to move the screen. That was when I was trying really hard with a really low frequency sine wave turned up way too loud. I have never once noticed any movement at all at sane volume levels listening to music or watching movies.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/12251029
> 
> 
> I wanted to give you the angle on what we call tilting.



Thanks for that. I've been wanting to ask a question and the word "tilting" has inspired me:


As many here, I'm suspicious of electric screens i.e. if rolled-up 95% of the time can they possibly unfurl smoothly and "flatly" long-term. I have a 60" RPTV that I want a 2.35 maybe 120"er in front for movie spectaculars. If I constructed a screen with an aluminum frame, such that it would be hinged at the ceiling and rotate up-and-against the ceiling when stowed, should the fabric be supported underneath so that "sag" doesn't bow it long term?


We HT geeks are worry-warts, but you know that!







Clearly for me the electric screen would be ideal, I just dunno about rollup/tensioning. Also cost is something of an issue for me.


----------



## mlbrand

Chris,


I also appreciate your update on moire and tilting the screen material. We are still really enjoying our 2.37 Center Stage AT screen, it is one of the best things I ever did in my HT room. With the speakers correctly placed behind the AT screen the movie soundtracks can synch perfectly with the video presentation, which results in an incredibly immersive movie watching experience. I am constantly amazed at how precisely you can match up the audio to the video on screen with just three speakers up front.


It is good to hear that the Panasonic smoothscreen helps eliminate any potential moire problems. I am very pleased with my Panasonic 900 projector, so when I upgrade in the future I will be taking a pretty hard look at the Panasonic 2000.


We still like our DIY screen made with your material, but someday want to buy one of your electric "tilted" screens. Once I make the move to 1080p I want to be sure to maximize PQ, and it appears from your work that tilting helps do that even if moire is not an issue.


Keep up the good work,


Mike


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/12256838
> 
> 
> If I constructed a screen with an aluminum frame, such that it would be hinged at the ceiling and rotate up-and-against the ceiling when stowed, should the fabric be supported underneath so that "sag" doesn't bow it long term?



I would support it. Not in the center so it doesn't get in the way of the center speaker, but at the 1/3 width lines. The fabric doesn't stretch much, just over 1% parallel to the thread directions, but that's still a large enough piece that you'd struggle to get it flat otherwise.


If you end up trying this approach, it should go in the DIY forum.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/12331749
> 
> 
> I would support it...at the 1/3 width lines.



Thanks for your reply Chris. I'll admit tho I'm leaning towards your electric at this point, the (F)ilm ten-footer. Two questions:


1. I know the cord gets hidden by the enclosure, but any chance the motor can operate from the right vs. the left? Naturally, my pre-wired box is at the right side of my ceiling!










2. Is the optional backing "loose" or is it somehow mated to the fabric to provide added "stiffness"? Acoustic transparency is not a feature I need btw--maybe you have another material in mind for a future option? (sorry, that's 3 questions)


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Laserfan -


1. Yes, the motor and cord exit can be ordered on the right side (as viewing the screen). It's a nonstandard option, but it isn't rocket surgery, (which is hard.)


2. If you don't need a retractable screen, they are never a better solution because of their retractability. Unless there's value in getting the screen out of the way, fixed frame screens are the simpler solution. Fixed frame screens from any company are always flatter, simpler, and less expensive a product than electrics.


3. Similarly, if you don't need acoustic transparency, then the visual portion of the screen's performance is never better due to being AT. If it were my money, I'd buy Carada's Brilliant White. The top surface out there is the Stewart Studiotek 130.


Of course being an audiophile, I absolutely cannot stand to compromise my sound and accept the acoustic distortion that solid screens impart. Too many people reduce their fidelity by not using identical speakers for their center channels, because they often can't and they follow that up with further unwise decisions on how best to compromise. Too many are using horizontally-aligned redundant drivers in a center channel (e.g. MTM or worse: MMTMM, WWMTMWW, ... they exist).


If you are using a smaller image size, can use speakers that are identical models across the front, with all their drivers aligned vertically as line sources, and don't mind the soundfield originating from below the image, then go non-AT. Or if you listen to your HT through headphones; that'd be OK.


Sorry if that sounds soap-boxish. But it's true that with only respect to your vision, AT never helps a screen's performance.


We won't be be abandoning acoustics for any future screen material options.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/12373384
> 
> 
> Yes, the motor and cord exit can be ordered on the right side...it isn't rocket surgery, (which is hard.)










Well I thought the motor could probably be flipped-over, since it is a two-way, but still there are mfrs for which this would threaten a complete tailspin.



> Quote:
> If you don't need a retractable screen, they are never a better solution because of their retractability...If it were my money, I'd buy Carada's Brilliant White....Sorry if that sounds soap-boxish...We won't be be abandoning acoustics for any future screen material options.



Your candor is remarkable, and much appreciated. I've been given a "yellow caution on its way to green" (yes in some countries this is done







) to do our HT right, which means a 2.35 screen and pj, but I must retain our 60" HDTV per the War Department. That's fine by me, but it requires a solution whereby the 10' 2.35 screen is out-of-the-way for some part of the time. Your electric screens are reasonably priced and well-constructed so you're tops on my list, despite that my speakers are already to-the-sides and below of the future screen position. I don't know if I've been good enough this year to get Santa's attention, but unless the economy takes a complete nosedive (impossible I think in this new ez-come-ez-go society) then my shots will be fired in 2008. Many thanks, sir!


----------



## BillStratton

This is just the thread I've been looking for!! I'm building a theater, or more correctly, a media room in my basement. Like other's before me, the CFO says that the 48" HD CRT RPTV must be in the room too. So, I've been looking for the right acoustically transparent electric drop down screen. By "right" I mean good visually, good acoustically, and good price. Looks like the Seymour AV Center Stage is just the ticket.


I sent my first email with my room set up and questions to Chris this morning at 10:01 and got a reply at 10:10! Chris simply said that he had gotten my email and would be reviewing it later. Now THAT'S customer service!


I'm also glad that I'm just now getting ready for my screen, rather than several months ago. The Center Stage screen "whole Monty" has all the features I've been looking for: electric drop down, acoustically transparent, black backed, tab tensioned, and sized for my space.


My Panasonic PT-AE2000U projector should arrive today! It's now time to order the screen, and once Chris looks over my info and says his screen will work great (and I'm sure it will), I'll order it. Construction is coming along, with studs, riser, electric and HVAC all to be complete this Thursday (12-Dec-2007). I


I've been too busy with all this stuff (we're also putting in a bathroom and small wet bar) to get some pictures up on my web space, but I will soon.


Oh, my speakers will all go behind the screen. The center channel sits on top of my RPTV. I'm sorry to say (for Chris), it's an MTM. My mains are Polk Audio RT-2000p powered sub towers, the center is the matching Polk CS-400, and my rears are Polk RT-800p smaller towers. I'm looking hard for some used Polk F/X 1000 or F/X 500 speakers for my side surrounds. An Integra DTR-7.1 powers the system. No HD DVD for me yet. CFO says no more expenses


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BillStratton* /forum/post/12396427
> 
> 
> No HD DVD for me yet. CFO says no more expenses



Geez, Bill, I was jealous right up to this last! You gotta find $500 more for the HD-XA2!










Nice first post. Let us know how your project works out.


----------



## BillStratton

If it wasn't so frustrating, it would be funny. We're spending a lot of cash to make a nice (not fancy or high end) theater, bath, foyer and wet bar. Decisions like +/- $500 for tile/carpet/lights.... are no problem, but no new A/V hardware for me! I can't complain though. It was my agreement that the only new purchases for the new room would be the projector and screen. I'm OK with that for now.


Hey, my panny arrived an hour ago! Too bad I'm tied up tonight. It won't even get unboxed


----------



## vishal

I'm currently building a theater for my father in his family room and wanted to weigh in on my experience with Chris @ SeymourAV.


Like many in this thread, I had some unique requirements when searching for a screen. It had to be a dropdown as this is a dual purpose room, it had to be acoustically transparent as I have wall-mounted speakers that I wanted to disappear behind the screen, and it had to be relatively affordable.


Once I found out about SeymourAV (largely from this thread), I contacted Chris. I found his website was fairly helpful in determining rough cost and available options. The best part was that emails and phone calls to Chris were always replied to promptly.


He was also understanding regarding some indecision on my part. I originally wanted to go for a scope (2.35:1) screen, but decided against it. I then purchased a 16:9 B-stock screen he had listed on his site and he agreed to repaint the case for me (it was white and I wanted it black) for a marginal cost.


I have yet to receive my screen, but will post my review here once I do. I have just purchased almost all of the components and cannot wait to set it all up.


For anyone curious, the set up will be as follows:
SeymourAV H100 (100" wide, 115" diagonal) 16x9, acoustically transparent, tab-tensioned, electric screen, double-backed black cloth
Panasonic AE2000U 1080p projector
Toshiba HD-XA2 HD DVD player
Marantz SR7002 Receiver/Pre-Amp
Sherbourn 7/2100 7-channel amplifier
5 Jamo D 7 LCR THX Ultra2 monopoles
2 Jamo D 7 SUR THX Ultra2 dipoles
Epik Conquest Sub


Again, I highly recommend anyone considering going with an affordable AT screen to contact Chris @ SeymourAV.


----------



## Vikingmd

How did you get a B-stock screen?


Nevermind I just saw the section in the store unfortunately none available.


----------



## [email protected]

I wanted to repost this here in the Official Seymour AV discussion - customer service deserves praise - so I hope it's OK to place this here from another thread that has largely vanished.



I am some 14,000 miles away from Seymour AV but as a Kiwi enthusiast for AT screens, I simply had to try one. I'd written about them a few years back and have used one daily ever since: http://www.audioenz.co.nz/2001/0108.html 


I wanted to try a Seymour screen after carefully reading through the details at his WEB site and selecting his product based on the information, good humour and professional style on show.


The screen arrived in New Zealand but was damaged by Fedex on delivery. Chris bent over backwards to help and a second screen was quickly sent Downunder again and arrived without problems - but I know Chris had to talk at length to Fedex and go the extra mile for me to make this all happen.


I've been around this business a long time and I have never received such outstanding service as I did from Chris Seymour. For the record I don't know Chris and have no involvement with his company or himself. But I sure would like to shake his hand and say 'thanks mate' in person.


The screen itself is fabulous and couple that with the care and quality service provided and it really is a pleasure to deal with Seymour AV.


Don't hesitate to get a Seymour screen - great product, great service.


----------



## Laserfan

Getting closer to an order, and realizing that my question about backing wasn't answered. Given that the electric screen is relatively new I hafta ask again: how is the backing material mated with the screen material? Worrying about separation over time.


I will be going with either the F110 or F120 (can't decide if the 120 is too big--my seating is only 9-10' away).


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Laserfan -


The black backing material is only bonded and stitched across the top, about 3.5" above the top of the image, in the velvet zone (sounds like a bar...) It's not laminated or bonded anywhere else to the screen material because if they are two individual layers they will roll up at different diameters and lengths. When it's retracted, the black backing layer hangs level with the weight bar. When it's down, the black backing layer hangs 0.75"-1" below the bar. It needs to be a tad bit longer due to it rolling up at a slightly larger diameter than the screen, since it's behind it.


Since it does not affect the image unless there's something problematic, its only job is to block light and stay as out of the way of the sound as possible. It just drapes behind the screen when it's down except recently I've added two bottom corner tie-downs. These are just black thread loops that loosely join the weight bar to holes in the bottom corners of the black backing. Their function is to ensure that the fabric never improperly rolls down and gets reverse-wound inside the case. I've never had that happen to anyone, but wanted to remove the risk.


Talking screen sizes, I think you're thinking too large ("that's what she said"). At 9.5 feet back, a 120" wide image would be a head-turning 55.5 degrees wide. The recommended THX maximimum viewing width is 36 degrees. You can cheat this a bit if you 1) watch almost all HD resolution source material, and 2) are the type of person that sits in the second row at the IMAX, but I wouldn't cheat it much. Being one who likes a punchy, more dynamic, higher resolution-density picture with smooth motion, I watch at about a 34 degree angle (109.3"wide, 15' back). I'd recommend F110 as the max to consider, and even think about the 95-105 range, or moving your seating back.


You're fairly near our minimum recommended viewing distance of 8'. If you want to see a screen sample to confirm that the texture disappears for you at your seating spot, PM or email me your address.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Hey Max -


Thanks for the kudos. Are you going to do a comparison of this material to your previous perf review? I'm sure you have some pearls of wisdom you could share for those who haven't really compared a woven AT material to perfed vinyl.


Thanks to you mate,

Chris


----------



## Laserfan

Thanks Chris for your very detailed reply, and comments on size. I *really* appreciate it! Dunno when I will finally put stakes in the ground (screen size & specific pj) but hopefully it will be soon...


----------



## BillStratton

An open question to current owners of the electric drop down Center Stage screen (or Chris). I sent Chris an email, but with Christmas and all I haven't gotten a reply yet.


When dropping the screen down, can the motor be stopped before the screen has reached it's maximum extension?


I've placed my order already, but am rethinking the top extra drop material. I may want the screen to drop lower when there are no people in the second (raised) row of seats. So, if I ordered say, 10" of drop material, could I stop the motor before all 10" is visible, so the bottom of the screen is higher sometimes?


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Bill -


I'm back. Hopefully you had a nice holiday, too, and had more will power than I did when it came to chocolate things.


The remote has a stop button which does just that. So if you normally had a 10" drop and wanted to on occasion only have a shorter drop, you just have to hit stop wherever you want. There's a bit of command lag, so you can only hit your target with about a 1" resolution. It's not as repeatable as using the motor's internal limits, but if you'll be vertically shifting anyway, it works well.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## BillStratton

Thanks Chris. I'll change my order to have more drop. I'll like it better for front row viewing (95%). Then when we have people in the back row, I'll just not drop it all the way. The Panny 2000U makes it very easy to vertically shift, so that won't be a problem.


I'm looking forward to it coming. My theater room is drywalled, textured and we'll be painting it this weekend. The screen should arrive right on time after the carpet is laid and the electrical oulets, switches and fixtures are installed.


----------



## craig john

I am seriously considering this screen in a motorized, drop-down 2.35:1 setup. I have a few questions:


1. The website says that, if you place your L/R's behind the screen, they should *not* be toe'd in. Does anyone have experience with this and what are the audible effects of toe-in?


2. If I go with speakers behind the screen, I can get a larger screen. Is 105" wide screen too large at a seating distance of 10.5 ft, using a 1080p projector? If I place the speakers outside the screen borders, I'm probably limited to a 95" wide screen. Would this be a better option at 10.5 ft.?


3. Is the tab-tensioning apparatus "visible" during viewing? In the picture on the website it looks like it could be somewhat reflective.


4. Has anyone mounted this screen to a dropped acoustical ceiling? If so, how did you do it?


5. I will not (initially) be using a 2.35:1 CIH setup. I will be zooming and lens shifting 2.35:1 movies. For 16:9 viewing, will I need some type of masking for the "blank" bars on the left and right, or will they be dark enough that it won't matter? (Remember, they won't be projected "black" bars, they'll be "blank" bars.)


That's all I can think of for now. Thanks for any help you can offer.


Craig


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/12676454
> 
> 
> I am seriously considering this screen in a motorized, drop-down 2.35:1 setup. I have a few questions:





> Quote:
> 1. The website says that, if you place your L/R's behind the screen, they should *not* be toe'd in. Does anyone have experience with this and what are the audible effects of toe-in?



Check out this thread where we just discussed this. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=964724 



> Quote:
> 2. If I go with speakers behind the screen, I can get a larger screen. Is 105" wide screen too large at a seating distance of 10.5 ft, using a 1080p projector? If I place the speakers outside the screen borders, I'm probably limited to a 95" wide screen. Would this be a better option at 10.5 ft.?



Screen size is a personal thing, but technically speaking, your PQ should be just fine. I am viewing a 115" wide 2.35 at 10 1/2 feet with a 720p projector, and it looks great.



> Quote:
> 3. Is the tab-tensioning apparatus "visible" during viewing? In the picture on the website it looks like it could be somewhat reflective.



Don't know, my SeymourAV screen is DIY with no tensioning. With Chris's attention to detail I would be very surprised if it was reflective.



> Quote:
> 4. Has anyone mounted this screen to a dropped acoustical ceiling? If so, how did you do it?



No, but mine is hanging from chains that are eye hooked into the ceiling studs, if that helps any.



> Quote:
> 5. I will not (initially) be using a 2.35:1 CIH setup. I will be zooming and lens shifting 2.35:1 movies. For 16:9 viewing, will I need some type of masking for the "blank" bars on the left and right, or will they be dark enough that it won't matter? (Remember, they won't be projected "black" bars, they'll be "blank" bars.)



If your L&R speakers are behind the screen, the tricky thing about masking the sides for 16:9 movies is making sure you are not putting the masking in front of your speakers, or that the masking is not going to degrade the sound too much. So I don't mask 16:9 myself. With speakers off to the sides it is of course not an accoustical issue. If I did it I think I would velcro attach some custom made black velvet covered panels on the sides.


Best regards,


Mike


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/12676454
> 
> 
> Is 105" wide screen too large at a seating distance of 10.5 ft, using a 1080p projector? If I place the speakers outside the screen borders, I'm probably limited to a 95" wide screen. Would this be a better option at 10.5 ft.?



My seating distance craig john is exactly 10.5' as well, and we've decide a 105" wide 2.35 screen is ideal, though honestly that's my wife talking; I think I could go a mite *bigger* myself. Any chance you could experiment against a wall or something to verify this first? I actually bought a 10' wide Gatorfoam board to use for testing prior to expending big $$ on a screen.


As for mounting, you obviously need something of substance above the ceiling panels to mount to; a motorized screen of this size is heavy! Consider also (besides chains) threaded rod to hang from.


I am considering SeymourAV, and have also looked at Da-Lite's Dual Masking Electrol (2.35 to 16:9) and Draper's Access MultiView E (2.35 to 16:9), both of which have a second roller with side masks to drop in place. All this rolled-up material does make me nervous long-term i.e. wrt wrinkles & such. BTW SeymourAV's screen is by far the most cost-effective, particularly as it has the tab-tensioning system built-in, and nicer controls I think.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/12676454
> 
> 
> 1. The website says that, if you place your L/R's behind the screen, they should *not* be toe'd in. Does anyone have experience with this and what are the audible effects of toe-in?



[Edit: I've edited this post a little since I've since learned that speaker angle has negligible effect on the acoustical properties of the Center Stage screen. See post ~127]


Hi Craig -


I posted this in the other thread, but can expand a bit on it since it's more our little sandbox to play in.


The good thing with woven AT fabrics is that they are far less sensitive to comb filtering than the holy vinyls. This allows for any such compromises one needs to make for their installation much more agreeable.


[Edit: Here I described how the openness of the AT screen fabric will decrease with increased speaker angles. While true, it has negligible effect on audio, so the following pictures are really only meaningful for light opacity curiosities]


All AT fabrics strike a balance between having enough air permeability to allow sound to pass, but with enough opacity to reflect something to watch. Any fabric with a hole and a thickness more than zero, will be to some degree compromised by angling the fabric with respect to the speaker. Increasing angles will cause the holes to decrease in size.


This first picture is looking straight through the material. A non-AT fabric would of course be opaque to this image, which is why they're the sonic tool of the devil.











Below is where the fabric is angled 10 degrees. You can only barely perceive a loss in openness. In reality, the openness is still around 95% of ideal, so the screen is still highly permeable. If towing in your speakers 10 degrees improves their performance in your room, this may be a net benefit. It's free to try.











Below is where the fabric is angled 20 degrees. You're still getting a little above 90% of your openness.











Here's 30 degrees.











40 degrees.











50 degrees.











60 degrees.











And at 70 degrees the fabric is closed up. Here's 65 degrees - it's last breath:











Now keeping in perspective that woven AT fabrics have the lowest degree of acoustic reflectivity, the effects are all up in the top octave and not very meaningful in application.


Different loudspeakers have different dispersion characteristics, and some need tow in more than others. Some speakers would have a benefit from some tow in. Also, different seating schemes benefit from some tow in. The variables of speakers, side wall distances and first reflection points, angle of view and front stage, seating locations and personal preferences will all need to be taken into consideration.


Here's a few scenarios and their tradeoffs:

1) Center only behind the screen, L/R are outside the screen area. This is what I do, and while my center channel has a tweeter switch that compensates 1dB, I still often recommend it.

Benefits:
Wider front soundstage. While audiophiles often considered an ideal L/R angle of 60 degrees from the comfy chair, this is often too wide without a center channel. You get a "headphone" effect and a hole opens up in the center. Having a center channel fills this in and allows you to consider a nice wide L/R separation.

You can tow in your L/R as aggressively as you want. I personally like a very aggressive tow in, firing the right speaker at the left-most seat, and the left speaker at the right-most seat. This greatly improves the off-axis imaging for the other seats and reduces side wall reflections.

Tradeoffs:
If you have a very large viewing angle on your screen, this may just be too wide.

Your screen width to wall width may not allow for the space to put the speakers outside the image and still get that big-screen look.

The very minor sonic effect from the screen will only be on the center channel. The attenuation of the screen is typically far less than the differences in speaker timbre if you have non-identical front speakers, but if you are doing well enough to get three identical speakers across the front, you may not want that 2dB difference in the top octave between the center and the other two.


2) All three front speakers behind the screen

Benefits:
They're all concealed. High WAF.

This may better fit your space, since you've obviously made room for the screen.

The screen's attenuation is identical for all three speakers.

Tradeoff:
Likely too narrow a front soundstage. I doubt your viewing angle is approaching 60 degrees (it better not be), so your front soundstage is likely quite narrow. Boorriing, and likely not up to standards (see post ~129).


3) Nothing behind the screen because you're not yet sold on acoustically transparent screens.

Benefits:
You can sit closer than 8ft to the screen

You can further climb the gain ladder, even though you lose color and light uniformity.

Tradeoffs:
You likely can't use three identical speakers across the front.

You're likely limited to either very short speakers or the horribly horizontal ones.

Sounds do not come anywhere near from where the image is located.

If it's a wall mount screen, your speakers are likely less than 3ft from the rear wall, increasing first order reflections and muddying your sound. If it's a ceiling mount retractable or a box TV, you have a large acoustic reflector between your speakers.


I'll try to dig up some sound charts to more explicitly show what's going on with speaker tow in.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/12676454
> 
> 
> I am seriously considering this screen in a motorized, drop-down 2.35:1 setup. I have a few questions:
> 
> 
> 2. If I go with speakers behind the screen, I can get a larger screen. Is 105" wide screen too large at a seating distance of 10.5 ft, using a 1080p projector? If I place the speakers outside the screen borders, I'm probably limited to a 95" wide screen. Would this be a better option at 10.5 ft.?
> 
> 
> 3. Is the tab-tensioning apparatus "visible" during viewing? In the picture on the website it looks like it could be somewhat reflective.
> 
> 
> 4. Has anyone mounted this screen to a dropped acoustical ceiling? If so, how did you do it?
> 
> 
> 5. I will not (initially) be using a 2.35:1 CIH setup. I will be zooming and lens shifting 2.35:1 movies. For 16:9 viewing, will I need some type of masking for the "blank" bars on the left and right, or will they be dark enough that it won't matter? (Remember, they won't be projected "black" bars, they'll be "blank" bars.)
> 
> 
> That's all I can think of for now. Thanks for any help you can offer.
> 
> 
> Craig



2. I'd say that's a bit big. You'd be at a 45.2 degree viewing angle. Around 36 is a good goal, the THX recommended maximum, and you can cheat this somewhat if you watch mostly HD source material, mostly film, personally enjoy sitting toward the front of the theater, don't mind motion artifacts and lower contrast ratings. If it were me, I'd recommend the 95 inch width. You could better tolerate standard definition DVD, and your overall picture quality will be smoother and punchier. You'd still be at a large 41.3 degree view. Laserfan's great point is to try it on a bedsheet or wall and know that you like it for various material.


3. Actually the tab tensioning is far more hidden on this screen than the common designs. The hardware only is visible off the upper and lower corners. There is nothing reflective within the 2" border area. There are some steel bits (four turnbuckles, threaded rod, crimp sleeve) where it attaches to the bar in the lower corners, but the visibility of these depends on how much ambient light you have. Your projector wouldn't be hitting these.


4. The screen is around 50lbs, so you'd need something load bearing to attach the mounting rail to.


5. It's a white screen material, so it depends on your ambient light levels and light spill from your projector. If you keep your ambient light down, some of the new projectors have such a dark blank zone and such low light spill that you can barely tell the difference between the two. Still, for a CIH setup you may consider curtains to mask with, etc.


----------



## 70MM

How does the gain of the screen look compared to a matte white 1.1 gain?


----------



## craig john




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/12680653
> 
> 
> Hi Craig -
> 
> 
> I'll try to dig up some sound charts to more explicitly show what's going on with speaker tow in.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Any luck with that, Chris?


Thanks.


Craig


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *70MM* /forum/post/12702656
> 
> 
> How does the gain of the screen look compared to a matte white 1.1 gain?



Nearly identical, with respect to brightness. Less than 10% light difference is nearly impossible to perceive unless you're directly A/B'ing them. PM me or ping the website if you want a sample to play with.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/12720276
> 
> 
> Any luck with that, Chris?
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Craig



It's next on my to-do list.


Today the Somfy rep visited and I'm working on making their motors an option. They're quieter, faster, and can be controlled from IR (among other options). So far the adaption plan looks pretty smooth. After I get product and prove it out I'll update the site with available options, specs, and price adders (unfortunately looking quite significant).


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## wfrick

I'm trying a sample and wondering, is there a front and a back, or are both sides the same?


Thanks,


Warren


----------



## ss9001

Chris,

Any chance of adding motorized masking to the product in the near future? Say a vertical dropdown to mask 16:9 to 2.35 keeping the same width?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wfrick* /forum/post/12741620
> 
> 
> I'm trying a sample and wondering, is there a front and a back, or are both sides the same?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Warren



Warren -


Both sides are the same. In a roll shipment, the inside surface is what's inspected to make sure it's free from blemishes.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ss9001* /forum/post/12743033
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Any chance of adding motorized masking to the product in the near future? Say a vertical dropdown to mask 16:9 to 2.35 keeping the same width?




There aren't near-term plans, but having access to Somfy's full line of motors will allow for more innovation. That said, a constant height setup (pillar box masking) would be much more feasible in a retractable than a letter-box masking system.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## stef2

Chris,


I am going to build a 2.35:1 AT screen. The dimensions of the viewable area would be either 51.1 by 120 (130.4 inches diagonal) or 53.3 by 125.2 (136 inches diagonal)(to be determined later). I will build the frame myself. how much fabric should I order from you if I want to be able tilt the fabric 15 degrees as suggested and have enough excess fabric all around to staple it to the frame?


Thanks for your time!


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> . . . when you fire your speakers straight through your angle of reflection is zero and comb filtering is minimized. Now keeping in perspective that woven AT fabrics have the lowest degree of acoustic reflectivity, the effects are all up in the top octave and not very meaningful in application.
> 
> 
> Different loudspeakers have different dispersion characteristics, and some need tow in more than others. I generally recommend that for those speakers that are behind the screen, get the maximum acoustic transparency by firing straight through. But I recognize that some speakers would have a net benefit from some tow in; their sound would improve from tow in more than the increased attenuation from the screen being effectively more closed. Also, I recognize that different seating schemes benefit from some tow in. From a screen perspective, I recommend what's ideal, but the variables of speakers, side wall distances and first reflection points, angle of view and front stage, seating locations and personal preferences will all need to be taken into consideration. If you keep your angles to 20 degrees or less, the screen compromises are very minor and some applications could have a net benefit from it.



I am having some trouble grokking this and I'm hoping that you can help me. Even if all speakers are aimed so that their axis is perpendicular to the screen material, all of their *other* radiated sound will strike the screen at angles. And only one listening position can be on-axis for any given LCR speaker; every other listening position will be off-axis and receiving sound that has hit the screen material at an angle. Too, those on-axis of one of the LCR speakers will be off-axis for the others. My question is - aside from seeking validation of my premise - what is the difference between off-axis sound striking the screen at an angle and ON-axis sound striking the screen at an angle?


Wouldn't the controlling factor of an AT screen's acoustical interaction with the sound be the angles of the listening positions vis-a-vis the screen and not the angles of the speaker axes in relation to same?



> Quote:
> Here's a few scenarios and their tradeoffs:
> 
> 1) Center only behind the screen, L/R are outside the screen area. This is what I do, and while my center channel has a tweeter switch that compensates 1dB, I still often recommend it.
> 
> Benefits:
> Wider front soundstage. While audiophiles often considered an ideal L/R angle of 60 degrees from the comfy chair, this is often too wide without a center channel. You get a "headphone" effect and a hole opens up in the center. Having a center channel fills this in and allows you to consider a nice wide L/R separation.



Isn't the goal in our theaters to have the soundstage sync'd with the image? If so, then the 60° angle you cite is only "ideal" if one has a similar angle subtended by the image. Indeed, isn't that the raison d'être for AT screens - to allow speaker placement behind the image?



> Quote:
> 2) All three front speakers behind the screen
> 
> 
> Tradeoffs:
> Likely too narrow a front soundstage. I doubt your viewing angle is approaching 60 degrees (it better not be), so your front soundstage is likely quite narrow. Boorriing.



This also goes to my previous point. Maybe the issue is that you refer to "audiophiles" when mentioning the 60° angle for an ideal soundstage; we are discussing home theaters and what works best for audio accompanying _video_.



> Quote:
> Limited ability to tow in. Some speakers are highly directional, some sidewalls are close, and some seating schemes really need some tow in. But unless you keep it under about 20 degrees, you're increasingly trading off acoustical transparency.



Again, won't those more than 20° off perpendicular from the screen (in the horizontal axis for the purposes of this discussion) from the point directly in front of any given speaker (regardless of the toe-in of the speaker) experience the trade-off in acoustical transparency?


Since we can't EQ only the off-axis radiated sound, isn't the ideal configuration for LCR behind an AT screen to have speakers with smooth (read: _flat_) and wide off-axis response, listening positions that are within small angles in relation to the screen and the underlying speakers, toe-in to the geographical center of the listening positions and gentle EQ'ing?


----------



## craig john

I received my sample of SeymourAV screen material today. It does not have the black backing material. It is cut on the "bias" at about a 15 degree angle to the hole structure, just as advertised on the website. My first impression is that it is much more "open" than I expected. With a "spec" of 5% open area, I expected very little visual transparency.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeymourAV* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is done by having the holes as small and closely spaced as possible, while maintaining an *openness factor of around five percent*.



(emphasis added)
http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp 


Holding it in my kitchen, with nothing but ambient daylight, it's possible to see right through the fabric. (It's probably too opaque to get Victoria Secret's interested in it as a lingerie material







, but it's certainly more see-thru than I expected.) In fact, it looks to my eye to be a lot more "open" than just 5%. If you look at the size of the holes vs. the size of the area separating the holes, I would guess the open area to be about 25%, maybe a little more than that, (note that I said "guess", as I don't have the ability to actually measure it.)


Just for reference, I can hold the material up in front of my computer monitor and I can still read my text through the screen material. It's dark and it's blurry, but it's still legible. This is much more visual transparency than I would expect from a material that only has 5% of it's surface area "open". The pictures of the Seymour AV logo that Chris posted above are also an example of the visual transparency of this screen material. In the first few pictures, you can distinctly see the logo through the screen material.


I also held it up 6" in front of my current screen, (Da-Lite HCCV). There is enough light passing through the material to show the image behind the sample on the Da-Lite screen; (of course, it's much dimmer than the direct image on the front of the sample, but it's visible nonetheless.) However, it appears to me that significantly more than 5% of the available light is passing through the screen material.


Surprisingly, even with the light loss through the screen material, the image on the front surface of the sample is still *slightly* brighter than the image on the HCCV screen. This makes some sense as the SeymourAV material is rated at 1.16 gain and the HCCV material is 1.1. Also, blacks are just *slightly* less black than on the HCCV, which again makes sense because the HCCV is a gray base, whereas the SeymourAV is a white base material.


I could see no _moire'_ pattern, but viewing the material from arm's length and holding it about 8" from the Da-Lite screen, the pixel structure of my Sony HS60 seems a little more noticeable on the SeymourAV material, or maybe I should say the image looks more "textured" on the Seymour. However, if I tape the screen sample to the screen, I can't see any more texture on it from my usual seating distance of 12'.


The acoustic transparency is a little harder to judge. I held the sample up in front of the tweeter on my center channel speaker, which is a horn-loaded Klipsch RC-7. From about 2' in front of the speaker and with the screen material 6" to 8" in front of the speaker, I *thought* I could hear a slight attenuation of the tweeter. However, the 8" x 12" sample is too small to make an accurate judgment of this property. Nonetheless, after seeing a sample of this screen material, I am less concerned about acoustic transparency than I am about the light loss and the visual transparency.


So, now I have some more questions:


1. How is the "open" area of the screen calculated? Is an "openness factor" of around five percent the same as 5% open area? Is the light loss through the material 5%? Does the "openness factor" give any indication of how much of the available light is lost through the screen material?


2. How would the black backing affect the light spill-through? Does it soak it up completely so none gets through to the back wall? Without it, will I be able to see the shadows of my speakers through the screen material?


3. Does the black backing deepen the blacks at all?


4. Does the black backing significantly affect the acoustic transparency, especially vis-a-vis the toe-in and off-axis issues discussed by pepar above? Although I plan to place my L/R speakers just outside the screen edges, the off-axis response is still important for any LP off-axis of the CC.


5. The final question I have was raised by a very experienced and knowledgeable AV installer I talked to. Will the screen move at all if there is high level bass output from a speaker behind the screen? How far away do the speakers need to be placed to ensure they don't cause rippling or movement of the screen at 60 to 80 Hz?


Finally, Chris, if you could dig up those measurements, I would be most interested in seeing them. Thanks.


Craig


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I could see no _moire'_ pattern, but viewing the material from arm's length and holding it about 8" from the Da-Lite screen, the pixel structure of my Sony HS60 seems a little more noticeable on the SeymourAV material, or maybe I should say the image looks more "textured" on the Seymour. However, if I tape the screen sample to the screen, I can't see any more texture on it from my usual seating distance of 12'.
> 
> 
> The acoustic transparency is a little harder to judge. I held the sample up in front of the tweeter on my center channel speaker, which is a horn-loaded Klipsch RC-7. From about 2' in front of the speaker and with the screen material 6" to 8" in front of the speaker, I *thought* I could hear a slight attenuation of the tweeter. However, the 8" x 12" sample is too small to make an accurate judgment of this property. Nonetheless, after seeing a sample of this screen material, I am less concerned about acoustic transparency than I am about the light loss and the visual transparency.



I sprung for the 24" x 24" sample of the Sheerweave 4500. If you're interested in exploring this material further, I'd be happy to drop by with it. Acoustical testing with a bigger sample might give results with a higher confidence level.


Did you happen to try re-orienting it to "remove" the bias to see if there was any moire with your HS60?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12794998
> 
> 
> I am having some trouble grokking this...



Me too, and I'm not even sure what grokking means.


I ran some tests this week because the original sound data I mentioned wasn't what I was looking for. So far the data doesn't show any bothersome effects with respect to speaker angle, which of course really bothers me. I have one more test to run, hopefully today but I've been told I should be watching football instead.


I'll answer each and every question and expand on my wrongness asap.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/12801419
> 
> 
> Me too, and I'm not even sure what grokking means.
> 
> 
> I ran some tests this week because the original sound data I mentioned wasn't what I was looking for. So far the data doesn't show any bothersome effects with respect to speaker angle, which of course really bothers me. I have one more test to run, hopefully today but I've been told I should be watching football instead.
> 
> 
> I'll answer each and every question and expand on my wrongness asap.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Yes, you should have been watching football! Great games this weekend. We look forward to your impressions Chris. I sure can't pick up any difference in angling my speakers, but then again I used to listen to Boston cranked up on an eight track tape deck with a Spark-O-Matic amp in my '67 Pontiac. What distortion?


----------



## pepar

If comb-filtering is occurring, it might be easier to hear by moving left-to-right (and back again) several feet than to remain static. Being a rocker, you'll understand when I say that you'll be listening for flanging. Granted, it won't be as dramatic as the effect that Tom Sholz occasionally used, but you'll know what to listen for.


----------



## ss9001




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/12801419
> 
> 
> Me too, and I'm not even sure what grokking means.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I wondered how long it would take for someone to ask









For those fans of classic sci-fi novels, grok is from Robert Heinlein's book Stranger in a Strange Land about a Martian who lands on Earth and tries to understand our culture and share his with us. It sort of means "understand."


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12815986
> 
> 
> If comb-filtering is occurring, it might be easier to hear by moving left-to-right (and back again) several feet than to remain static. Being a rocker, you'll understand when I say that you'll be listening for flanging. Granted, it won't be as dramatic as the effect that Tom Sholz occasionally used, but you'll know what to listen for.



pepar,


Excellent point, flanging is a very good analogy to use in describing what comb filtering sounds like. Here is a link to a Wikipedia definition page, that even has example sound clips to listen to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanging I've definitely not heard anything like that with my screen and system so far, but I might try listening a little closer, and moving around as you suggested.


----------



## chriscmore

Well, the data is in and it shows me not only how some of my experiences derive from, but also where I'm wrong. My basis for recommending that folks try to minimize their speaker angles with respect to the screen (e.g. fire them straight through - don't tow them in) came from previous experience with acoustically transparent large and small-format screens and their tendency to affect the sound at different speaker angles. My analogy with the light opacity at different angles seemed to support that the material acts like it has a different openness at different angles and hence its permeability and sonic transparency would be affected. Fire straight through and get the full openness of the fabric, increase the angle and you're thereafter trading off acoustical transparency. After running through the tests with the Center Stage screen fabric, the measurements didn't support this. If you're wearing a tie, your summary is that the Center Stage screen doesn't perform worse at increased speaker angles, and that comb filtering is not significantly affected by speaker angle.


Test setup: A calibrated Behringer ECM8000 microphone was placed an inch from the test screen, which was located about 6 in front of the center speaker. I didn't rotate the speaker or the mic, as this would cause its acoustical performance within the room to change. I'm not here to measure the off-axis performance of my speaker, so I only rotated the fabric. I then subtracted the measured performance from my speaker's frequency response, so you're only looking at the change from adding and angling the screen. Here's a pic of the setup:










The general consensus is that people can only discern 1/3 octave frequency variations; that our hearing naturally smoothes out narrow bandwidth artifacts. I argue that this is a bit crude, so I'll show the 1/24 octave to see what the microphone can hear, and a 1/6 octave resolution to see what effects could be audible.


First up is a perforated vinyl AT screen like I have had prior experiences with in residential and commercial theater sound. I've known since the around 1991 (first stage sound job) that the sound of speakers firing through perforated vinyl screens changed depending on what angle they fired through the screen. The effect is admittedly minor compared to the typically-huge changes in speakers' natural off-axis performance, but is clearly audible. While this should teach me not to learn from prior experiences, it won't because that would be learning from a now-prior experience.


This first chart is a perforated vinyl AT screen, measured with 1/24 octave resolution. This chart shows a change in how the screen combfilters the sound passing through it at different angles. I don't get too much from this chart other than these screens give acoustically transparent a bad name. I'd be just slightly more likely to do this to my speakers than I would be to replace everything with a Wave radio and mp3s (now possible via the Aux jack - yea!)










More importantly, the following is what you hear. At 1/6 octave resolution, the chart below shows that while the vinyl screen will easily sound *different* versus speaker angle, it doesn't necessarily sound *worse*. The speaker's frequency response is significantly different versus screen angle, but the variation in the screen's acoustical attenuation isn't significantly changing. As my brother often says, That's where you're wrong. I calculated the standard deviation in order to put a number on how much audible comb filtering the screen is doing versus angle, and it doesn't change much. That chart is at the end of the post.











Here is a 1/24 octave chart with the Center Stage screen material. There is measurable comb filtering (even many speaker grill fabrics will measure comb filtering), but the general takeaway is that the measured performance isn't significantly affected by speaker angle.










In the 1/6 octave chart below, we are better able to discern what would be the audible effects of changing the firing angle of the speaker through the screen fabric. From the +/- 40 degree angle sweep, the acoustical transparency of the screen is within 1dB, which is about what my test uncertainty is. Even at significant angles, the fabric is just not acoustically reflective enough to affect the sound much. With this, I'd say to angle your speakers however you think best for the room surfaces, speaker radiation pattern, seating angles, and overall preferences and not worry about any screen effects.










Judging the squiggly-ness of the lines quantitatively, I calculated the standard deviations of each angled measurement to map out audible changes in frequency variation versus angle. Below is the chart showing that various angles don't affect the audible comb filtering much for either AT screen type. While perforated vinyl screens are arguably acoustically transparent at all, their frequency response varies greatly no matter what angle the speaker is. Being highly variable, their response will audibly change versus angle, but their variability is not increased with angle.


Similarly, the Center Stage screen's degree of frequency variation is consistent versus speaker angle. The material is acoustically inert enough that the speaker angles have a minimal effect. There may well be more good reasons for angling your speakers than there are against. I'll hit more on vision and sound-field philosophies in another post.










Sorry for my confusion. I'll trim down my earlier rants to better reflect what's been learned here.


Next up, some speaker/room angle points and some answers to some specific questions.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## pepar

Thanks, that "clears" it up nicely.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12794998
> 
> 
> Isn't the goal in our theaters to have the soundstage sync'd with the image? If so, then the 60° angle you cite is only "ideal" if one has a similar angle subtended by the image. Indeed, isn't that the raison d'être for AT screens - to allow speaker placement behind the image?
> 
> 
> 
> This also goes to my previous point. Maybe the issue is that you refer to "audiophiles" when mentioning the 60° angle for an ideal soundstage; we are discussing home theaters and what works best for audio accompanying _video_.



Hi pepar -


No, the goal is not always to sync the soundstage to the image, but to rather realistically reproduce what was put together in the mixing soundstage and recreate the full sensory experience as it was intended. Off-screen sound effects are regularly placed in the L/R channels, as well as initial panning to the surrounds. Studies have shown that with dramatic audio, people perceive the video as more dynamic as well (they recalled that the screen size was larger than it actually was).


Your video field should be about 36 degrees per THX. You can cheat this +10 degrees or so if you watch more HD sources, accept the reduction in image punch, increased motion artifacts, and personally enjoy a bigger feel. But it's still a worthy goal post.


Your audio field is 360 degrees, but talking strictly about the front soundstage, that visual goal post of 36 degrees is narrower than the audio standards and most good practices allow. Below are the recommended speaker locations per Dolby:










First you can note what a boorriing front display they have, and that irresponsibly-horizontal, non-identical center channel. But it's a valuable guide on sound field setup, because it is how the standards and practices are followed. Notice that you can get your screen size up to around 44 degrees before it starts to encroach into the L/R zone. That's why I mention that if all three of your speakers are in front of your screen, it's likely that your screen is too large (>45 degrees) or your L/R separation is too narrow (


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/12824882
> 
> 
> Well, the data is in and it shows me not only how some of my experiences derive from, but also where I'm wrong...recommending that folks try to minimize their speaker angles with respect to the screen (e.g. fire them straight through - don't tow them in)... After running through the tests with the Center Stage screen fabric, the measurements didn't support this.



I don't think I've ever seen a mfr do this, at least not without lots of challenges & criticism beforehand.


You are to be commended, sir!


----------



## pepar

Thanks for the reply, Chris.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> No, the goal is not always to sync the soundstage to the image, but to rather realistically reproduce what was put together in the mixing soundstage and recreate the full sensory experience as it was intended.



A few AVS members who work in the film industry (and mix some of the movies we watch) report that the standard practice is not only to have the monitors all behind the screen, but to locate them within the *1.78:1* area of the 2.35:1 screen. I do not recall reading their seating distance, so I don't know their viewing/listening angle. But if the goal is to realistically reproduce what was put together on the mixing soundstage, and I do wholeheartedly and enthusiastically subscribe to that philosophy, LCR must be behind the screen.


And certainly the speakers at the cinema are all behind the screen.



> Quote:
> First you can note what a boorriing front display they have, and that irresponsibly-horizontal, non-identical center channel. But it's a valuable guide on sound field setup, because it is how the standards and practices are followed. Notice that you can get your screen size up to around 44 degrees before it starts to encroach into the L/R zone. That's why I mention that if all three of your speakers are in front of your screen, it's likely that your screen is too large (>45 degrees) or your L/R separation is too narrow (


----------



## mlbrand

Chris,


Great post. It's nice to see some good numbers on the apparent minimal audible comb filtering of your screen material.


BTW, I agree with BOTH you and pepar about locating speakers behind the screen and striving for 60 degree speaker angles, and have actually come quite close to doing both. My LCR speakers are all behind my screen, and speaker angles are 66 degrees (49 degrees at the listening point angle) Here's how I did it. My screen is 115" wide (plus 4"/side for masking), and the L&R speakers are 9.5' apart. My viewing/listening distance is 10.5' feet, and the "listening" distance to my speakers is 11.5 feet . This puts my viewing angles at 38 degrees for 16:9, and 49 degrees for 2.35 "scope" films. That may seem too big for 2.35 movies, but we don't think so, and neither do our guests. Doing a true CIH setup with a scaler and anamorphic lens no doubt helps maintain image quality for 2.35 movies. The room does seem to "disappear" when we watch movies or listen to music, and with the right movie or CD it is magical!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/12797784
> 
> 
> 1. How is the "open" area of the screen calculated? Is an "openness factor" of around five percent the same as 5% open area? Is the light loss through the material 5%? Does the "openness factor" give any indication of how much of the available light is lost through the screen material?



The open (hole) area is around 5% and is the openness factor. That means the holes areas are approximately 5% of the area in comparison to the threads. The fabric allows more than 5% light through it because light will travel through the fabric as well. Most non-AT projections screens will cast an image on their back surface and allow light to transmit through the material as well. Although this effect isn't often a problem, typically only the heavy, reinforced vinyl screens, often with black back sides are truly opaque. The openness factor surely affects the light transmitted through the screen, but the color of the fabric is another major contributor. A 5% open black fabric would come close to what you're describing.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/12797784
> 
> 
> 2. How would the black backing affect the light spill-through? Does it soak it up completely so none gets through to the back wall? Without it, will I be able to see the shadows of my speakers through the screen material?



The black backing is a 10% open material, and thus will allow about that much light through since it otherwise absorbs and is a very poor re-transmitter of light. From the viewing area, light bounce-back has to go through any layer twice, so it's in practice not that big an issue. Or at least not nearly the issue that Stewart markets it as (woven screens [which require a secondary black backing] goes their advertisement).


Probably 80% of the retractable screens we've made have had black backing layer. This is because the purpose of a retracting screen is to get out of the way from something that should be seen behind it, be it a window, plasma screen, entertainment center, etc. Those things are highly reflective and the reason why most retractable woven AT screens will need the black backing layer.


Probably 95% of the fixed screens folks have been building do not require the black backing material. These installations are typically purpose-built and what's behind the screen is intended to be entombed. Those surfaces can be darker and less reflective.


The general rule is that as long as your surfaces are medium shade or darker, and reasonably non-reflective, you won't need the black backing layer. Only light color surfaces and things like plasma screens, windows, or shiny metal require it. Also, ceiling retractable installations with a 3+ feet behind the screen often need the black backing so side viewers don't see a secondary image splashed on the back wall. I always advocate people to use paint or otherwise treat the surface first. No sense putting another layer there if you don't need. But if you do, it's a great solution.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/12797784
> 
> 
> 3. Does the black backing deepen the blacks at all?



No, unless you have a real problem (e.g. light walls behind the screen) that the black backing needs to fix. It's only a corrector, not an upgrade.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/12797784
> 
> 
> 4. Does the black backing significantly affect the acoustic transparency, especially vis-a-vis the toe-in and off-axis issues discussed by pepar above? Although I plan to place my L/R speakers just outside the screen edges, the off-axis response is still important for any LP off-axis of the CC.



It averages 1dB attenuation in the top octave, so it's more acoustically transparent than the screen. From my other post that the screen proved basically immune to speaker angle, the black backing layer would be even more so.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/12797784
> 
> 
> 5. The final question I have was raised by a very experienced and knowledgeable AV installer I talked to. Will the screen move at all if there is high level bass output from a speaker behind the screen? How far away do the speakers need to be placed to ensure they don't cause rippling or movement of the screen at 60 to 80 Hz?
> 
> 
> Craig



Only unless you have unusually high port velocities and are squeezing the minimum screen-to-speaker distance of 2. In practice you can put the screen right on top of the speaker, but depending on the speaker type at lower frequencies, the driver and/or port may need more breathing room. Practically speaking it isn't an issue. Subwoofers can go behind the screen, but in those cases we recommend getting around 12 of distance to the screen, and not directing any ports right at the fabric. Unless you could blow out a candle with the airflow, you won't move the screen.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## gottahavapj

Greetings all,


I don't know if this has been addressed before, a couple of different searches revealed nothing. I have a new Mits 4900 1080P projector and am investigating buying AT material from Chris for a DIY fixed frame AT ~90" diagonal screen. The Mitsubishi remote seems to have an occasional problem with the projector accepting remote commands bounced off the current BO cloth screen, more so than my Optoma did. My question is- does the AT fabric pass IR remote signals bounced off the screen with about the same efficiency as a solid material?


Thanks! Cheers!


----------



## bayn

Well I got my AT sample from Seymore and though I'd throw up a quick mini review from what I saw. Behind this cloth is a 10 dollar laminate from HD and next to it are the Wilson Art Laminate samples, my picture is being thrown up with a Mitsu 4900.


First is that from my seating distance, roughly 10ft, this screen looked great and it had a smooth picture with no panning issues that *I* could detect; the ONLY time I could see any of the weave was on pure white scenes which showed itself as a very slight hint of grain. For AT material overall I'd say this throws up a "solid" picture as well as the highly touted Wilson Art laminate.

Also compared to the other surfaces the Seymore cloth had a *slightly* darker color being thrown back and I can almost promise this is due to the holes in it, not anything to do with the cloth itself. The cloth has plenty of punch that I saw and overall I could not tell this was AT material. Unfortunately for me I could not place my speakers behind it, nor have some way of floating the cloth infront of them.


If I didnt have any of the other materials next to it, it would be very hard to even see any of these changes (which I have to say are VERY very minor). Just to be clear, for those that are curious I'll restate that unless you have something right next to it, this AT material performs, to my eyes, as well as any solid projection screen. Even with solid materials around it, it was VERY hard to spot differences. I had to pause, get close and look for where the material made a difference in the picture. (Understand I have a small sample of course)


Now my questions are directed toward my lack of knowledge about electrical screens in general.


Will a tabbed screen develope ANY wrinkles? (ever?)

How long do these electrical motors last?

Can they be replaced easily?


Considering these are the cost of a projector, I'm am interested in how many trouble free years such a purchase would last me as I don't intend to constantly aquire new ones


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gottahavapj* /forum/post/12842327
> 
> 
> Greetings all,
> 
> 
> I don't know if this has been addressed before, a couple of different searches revealed nothing. I have a new Mits 4900 1080P projector and am investigating buying AT material from Chris for a DIY fixed frame AT ~90" diagonal screen. The Mitsubishi remote seems to have an occasional problem with the projector accepting remote commands bounced off the current BO cloth screen, more so than my Optoma did. My question is- does the AT fabric pass IR remote signals bounced off the screen with about the same efficiency as a solid material?
> 
> 
> Thanks! Cheers!



My remotes seem to all shoot through the SeymourAV screen just fine, with no problems at all, like it's not even there.


----------



## aquafire

Great post BAYN....interested in the answers to the same questions you have.


WS


----------



## bass addict

Chris, I will also commend you on your ongoing investigative work. I have really been waffling between a 110 and 130" screen for the fact that I really like my mains toed in. Now I don't have to worry about it and can pick up the 130.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bayn* /forum/post/12856959
> 
> 
> Will a tabbed screen develope ANY wrinkles? (ever?)
> 
> How long do these electrical motors last?
> 
> Can they be replaced easily?



Hi Bayn -


1) The fabric doesn't stretch much, just over 1%, so is very stable for the long run unlike unreinforced vinyl screens which can stretch over time. The purpose of the tab system, which is rarely used in reinforced fabrics, is to further ensure that once it's calibrated flat it stays that way. Our tension system uses turnbuckles which are adjustable if they ever need a tweaking. Sometimes after shipping they get shifted a bit and a little tweak is all that's needed, but once it's set it won't develop any wrinkles or waves.


2) The standard RF motors are rated for appx. 20,000 cycles. We've been using them now for four years without any that have worn out. I don't yet know what the upgrade Somfy motors will be rated at, but they are widely used.


3) No, it'd need to be replaced here. It's not a field fix.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gottahavapj* /forum/post/12842327
> 
> 
> ...Mits 4900 1080P projector ... does the AT fabric pass IR remote signals bounced off the screen with about the same efficiency as a solid material?



I'd guess about the same. Although there are several screens out there with the 4900 pj, we haven't specifically experimented with a projector that's otherwise borderline-strong with it's IR signal. All the Sonys and Pannys we've played with have been fine.


Sorry I don't have a more exact experience to point to. Perhaps someone using the fabric and the 4900 could share their thoughts?


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## gottahavapj

Thanks for the feedback. I will report back with the results once I get my screen done.


Chris- I want to thank you for all the good info you offer up. I was all set to order some material from you when I stumbled across someone who had SW4500 chunks for sale at a greatly reduced price. I need to pursue that opportunity as the savings will about pay for a Blu-ray player. No small issue when the wife, who happens to be a loan officer at a bank is watching the transactions like a hawk.







My apologies for my biz going elsewhere. Now should that deal not materialize- I'll be in touch in a heartbeart.


Thanks!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gottahavapj* /forum/post/12895415
> 
> 
> No small issue when the wife, who happens to be a loan officer at a bank is watching the transactions like a hawk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies for my biz going elsewhere.



Fully understood... a deal is a deal, so cheers to you. I hope it works out well for you. If you have any pearls of wisdom to share afterwards, don't be a stranger...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## PhillipD

Well seeing that this is the offical thread I wonder if a rumor can be answered?? Is it true Chris that you will now have a Canadian distributer? I have been looking everywhere in Canada for your product with no luck and while compairing AT screens I gave a company your site, now I here that Seymour AV could be coming to Canada. I am very excited I was kinda worried about shipping via fedex from the US.


I will be ordering my PJ this week and a while down the road hope to be getting one of your screens.


Later

Phil


----------



## stef2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PhillipD* /forum/post/12926165
> 
> 
> Well seeing that this is the offical thread I wonder if a rumor can be answered?? Is it true Chris that you will now have a Canadian distributer? I have been looking everywhere in Canada for your product with no luck and while compairing AT screens I gave a company your site, now I here that Seymour AV could be coming to Canada. I am very excited I was kinda worried about shipping via fedex from the US.
> 
> 
> I will be ordering my PJ this week and a while down the road hope to be getting one of your screens.
> 
> 
> Later
> 
> Phil





MMMMM...very interesting, is that true?


----------



## PhillipD

Guess it is not rumor any more.............
http://www.complete-it.ca/ProjectorScreen/Seymour.php 

Thought I tlaked to the right guy LOL


Later

Phil


----------



## BillStratton

Well, my goal of getting my new theater up and running in time for our annual Super Bowl party has been accomplished! I haven't had much time to play with everything, but I certainly am pleased with the Sound Stage screen.


Here are a couple of -- lights on, with flash, no image projected -- pictures of the screen up and down.


----------



## HT Obsessed

Very Nice Bill!


Let us know how the BIG GAME looks!!!


HT Obsessed


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BillStratton* /forum/post/13013340
> 
> 
> Well, my goal of getting my new theater up and running in time for our annual Super Bowl party has been accomplished! I haven't had much time to play with everything, but I certainly am pleased with the Sound Stage screen.
> 
> 
> Here are a couple of -- lights on, with flash, no image projected -- pictures of the screen up and down.



Nice setup Bill. I'm sure this will add to your Super Bowl enjoyment immensely. If someone in the halftime show does "a Janet" I'll bet you won't miss it!


----------



## mlbrand

I'm considering upgrading to a 1080p projector, from my current Panasonic AE-900, 720p. It looks pretty good, but I'm lusting for better black levels and more detail.

*So....those of you have viewed several types of 1080p projectors on this AT screen, what looks best? A Panasonic 2000 "smoothscreen" or Sony Pearl "film like" projector, or a razor sharp Mitsubishi 5000, JVC RS1 type of picture? I'm especially concerned with moire' being an issue. Do the sharper image projectors have a bigger problem with this?*


I view a 10' wide screen from about 11 feet. My current screen is not angle cut, but I will be changing to a 15 degree angled screen soon.


----------



## BillStratton




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HT Obsessed* /forum/post/13014724
> 
> 
> Let us know how the BIG GAME looks!!!



TOO big, that's how. At 9.5' away from the 7.5' wide screen, the action was too much for our eyes and brains. After a while I used the zoom to make the picture about 6.0'-6.5' wide. That was easier to handle. But everyone sure did like it on the big screen! Toss in great food, a great game, and it was a top notch evening !


----------



## will_blueprint

i know this may be a stupid question, but i love this pic of a AT screen, it is possible to get lighting effects to have it look like this with lights on you can see the speakers behind it? If anyone has a pic of this in their set up, it will be appreciated


----------



## phisch

Yeah, that behind the screen lighting effect is pretty cool looking. I believe Art S. has something similar in his theater, maybe he will post a pic.


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Will -


Nearly all of the retractables use the black backing layer because there's typically something behind the screen worth looking at when not watching a movie (e.g. plasma, window, art, etc.) With the black backing layer, it's too opaque to get much of an effect like that.


Nearly all of the fixed frame applications do not use the black backing layer because for a permanent installation it's quite easy to get things medium color or darker and reasonably non reflective. So it'd would be easy to get an identical lighting effect to that pic just by backlighting creatively.


Not a bad picture. Looks like an OK theater...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## BillStratton

I tried putting a light behind my screen to try this. You can see the speakers/TV a little, but like Chris said, with the extra black backing, you can't see them very well. Then, since I have my grill covers on, the speakers just look like big black blobs anyway. Same for my TV behind the screen. Not cool like the pic above.


----------



## will_blueprint

Well I am planning on having a fixed frame, so I don't think I would need to use the black backing. I have the JBL L820's, while they aren't the Klipsch Ultra II's I still think they are a pretty speaker in their own right and I would like to show them off with a similar effect. Now hopefully this seller accepts the bid I just put in on this house so I can buy something form chris in the very near future







Thanks for the info guys


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *will_blueprint* /forum/post/13180483
> 
> 
> Well I am planning on having a fixed frame, so I don't think I would need to use the black backing. I have the JBL L820's, while they aren't the Klipsch Ultra II's I still think they are a pretty speaker in their own right and I would like to show them off with a similar effect. Now hopefully this seller accepts the bid I just put in on this house so I can buy something form chris in the very near future
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info guys



I use a SeymourAV screen, and while that's a cool picture you posted, I do everything I can to AVOID seeing my speakers through my screen. I even put black felt over the thin piano black edge of my center channel speaker, if not I can see it during movies. I understand that you are looking for that "showroom" effect, but it might be hard to show off your speakers before the movie starts, and then hide them during the movie. IMHO, anything behind an AT screen that is light in color or reflective will cause PQ problems during viewing.


----------



## mcfoo

mlbrand, are you using the black backing layer?


----------



## V.X.Donique

I want to publicly thank Chris for the sample, looks good to me....so I guess I found my screen







I'm in the process of testing 4400, but it looks like a no go...


Thanks Chris, you'll be hearing from me shortly


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mcfoo* /forum/post/13190010
> 
> 
> mlbrand, are you using the black backing layer?



No, I purchased the screen material from Chris and made my own roll down. I also have to velcro a black fleece blanket over my RPTV screen to avoid reflections from that.


----------



## craig john

I received an e-mail today saying that my screen shipped!







95" wide, 16 x 9, motorized, drop down with extra drop, black backing material and a black case. Hopefully it will arrive before the weekend. If so, I'll try to install it this weekend. I'll try to take pics of the crating, unpacking and install for anyone interested. It's going on a dropped acoustical tile ceiling, so I may need to get "creative" with the mounting.










Craig


----------



## Logic_BomB

Anxious to hear how it goes and see how it looks craig


----------



## oman321

 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1000388 


Anyone still wondering if they can properly show their speakers with lighting from behind check out what popechild did on his DIY 2:35 screen in the thread above. It's about halfway or so down.


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/13179606
> 
> 
> Not a bad picture. Looks like an OK theater...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



You must know who's theater that is right?









Which brings me to my question.

I was in on Sandman's first shipment of what came to be known as SMX.

It's a great screen and I am delighted that someone as knowldgeable and accessible as Chris has joined the fray.

I have 3 identical speakers for my L\\C\\R with the center speaker behind the screen and the L&R outside of it. All 3 speakers are equi-distant from the center seat and each other.

My screen is fixed in a framed screen wall covered with black GOM. The original plan was to build removeable GOM covered panels to "hide" the L & R speakers.

Would using the Seymour black screen backing material be a better, i.e., more acoustically transparent option to GOM?

Thanks!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/13302884
> 
> 
> You must know who's theater that is right?



It's that one where the popcorn machine has spinners on it, right?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/13302884
> 
> 
> I was in on Sandman's first shipment of what came to be known as SMX.



Me too.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/13302884
> 
> 
> Would using the Seymour black screen backing material be a better, i.e., more acoustically transparent option to GOM?
> 
> Thanks!



Not sure. I've played with GOM before but haven't measured it head to head. The black AT fabric we use is 10% open, averaging ~1dB above 10kHz. It's only slightly less acoustically transparent than most speaker grill fabrics. I imagine the differences would need measured to be known. I've requested a sample of the material from them and will post the results.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Milt99

Thanks Chris!


----------



## mlbrand

I just thought I would report in that my new Sony VW40 looks awesome on my SeymourAV AT screen. This is my first 1080p projector, and the increase in resolution is very obvious. Black levels are also very good with this projector, and the colors are great too. I had Jason Turk QC and calibrate it for me before he shipped it off, and he did a great job.


Of special note to SeymourAV screen owners, this Sony projector has a very film like image that has minimal to no moire' on my NON-angled screen. (I didn't angle cut my DIY screen when I built it a year ago.) I will still eventually be going to an angled screen, as I think it will smooth out the image a little more, but this projector is very useable on a screen that is not angled, if you are in that situation. I will occasionally see a little bit of moire' here and there, but only if I am looking for it, and my family doesn't even notice it. Along with throwing a smooth and "film like" image, the VW40 has a very sharp focus, which really adds to the 3D feeling in HD movies.


Reviewers and installers I respect say that the VW40 exceeds the well regarded VW50 in most if not all areas, and some say that the VW40 is actually very close in performance to the VW60. Overall this projector is a very good match for the SeymourAV screen, and IMHO a great buy, with an excellent performance to price ratio.


----------



## Nedtsc

Is 12 volt trigger available?


Base on the pictures available on tab tensioned, they don't look like other standard commercial screens like da-lite and stewart that tightly pulls the sides producing curvy sides. How effective is your tensioned screen? How about the look?


----------



## chriscmore

12v trigger input is available via the Somfy motor option. It comes with a control cable, and in order to get the trigger input, you then connect the control cable to the optional wall switch. The wall switch, in addition to providing the obvious, has connectors on the back for open/closed dry contact, and a dc trigger input.


Our screen material isn't the unreinforced vinyl like the screens you mentioned. It therefore doesn't suffer from the long-term deformation issue that unreinforced screens would suffer from if they weren't tensioned. We don't need a huge and bizarre looking tension system, and have developed methods of concealing most of it.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Nedtsc

Chris, would the AVUA-IRRTS Universal Automation Interface IR Controlled be used to integrate with my universal remote control?


----------



## chriscmore

Ned - It could, but you don't have to use that unless you're tying in automated shades in with the screen operation. Unlike their roller shade motors, the IR commands to Somfy's ILT motors are learnable. If you don't have a file for your universal, you can just buy and return the IR remote.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## SKCERN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/12829296
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Great post. It's nice to see some good numbers on the apparent minimal audible comb filtering of your screen material.
> 
> 
> BTW, I agree with BOTH you and pepar about locating speakers behind the screen and striving for 60 degree speaker angles, and have actually come quite close to doing both. My LCR speakers are all behind my screen, and speaker angles are 66 degrees (49 degrees at the listening point angle) Here's how I did it. My screen is 115" wide (plus 4"/side for masking), and the L&R speakers are 9.5' apart. My viewing/listening distance is 10.5' feet, and the "listening" distance to my speakers is 11.5 feet . This puts my viewing angles at 38 degrees for 16:9, and 49 degrees for 2.35 "scope" films. That may seem too big for 2.35 movies, but we don't think so, and neither do our guests. Doing a true CIH setup with a scaler and anamorphic lens no doubt helps maintain image quality for 2.35 movies. The room does seem to "disappear" when we watch movies or listen to music, and with the right movie or CD it is magical!




Wow Thank you for your post!!!




You are right!
















If we watch both 16:9 and 2.35:1 with the same view angle then

the 2.35:1 looks smaler...(smaler Solid angle)

This is the situation when we keep the width constant.


When we keep the width constant we have the same angle.

We don't like this setup because we loose the scope feeling


PS

Sorry for my English (English is my second language)


----------



## mlbrand

SKCERN,


I see this is your first post, welcome to the forum! Yes, I really love watching 2.35 movies in their full glory. I mostly watch Blu-ray and HD-DVD movies anymore, and it seems that a very large majority of movies released in HD formats are cinemascope. If someone mostly watches movies with their projector a 2.35 screen is definitely the way to go, unless there is some type of space constraint. Most of the time a 2.35 screen will fit a room much better, especially if you use an AT screen like Seymour's.


----------



## stef2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/10743210
> 
> 
> Here is another method of attaching a screen to a fixed frame wall. We've done this a few times and it works pretty slick. Here is a picture of just the screen trimmed in 2" velvet borders. This one has the fabric tilted 15 degrees to handle higher pixel densities for the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quandry is then how to attached it to a wall or fixed framing. What this customer is doing is building a false wall out and covering the framing with black GoM fabric. With Velcro bonded and stitched on the back of the screen, they then just need to attach the mating velcro to the framed opening. Here is a picture of the backside of the screen where you can see the 1.5" wide Velcro, stitched to the screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the screen rolled up (it's a fat roll due to the thickness of the Velcro), and the mating adhesive Velcro included. While the mating Velcro is adhesive backed, you'd want to use some staples to make sure it doesn't move over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The installation should be a breeze, with a no-brainer way of adjusting to make sure it's drum tight. Hopefully we can get some of the installation pictures from the customer and see how it goes on the other end. But I thought with all the DIY "issues" we face out there, folks may find it interesting.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I was wondering if anyone could comment on that way of attaching the screen. Does it cause any wrinkles, does the screen move over time? Does the velcro create a visible gap between the screen material and the screen frame itself? This way of fixing the AT screen to a rigid frame seems very interesting...


----------



## Doug G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/13291737
> 
> 
> I received an e-mail today saying that my screen shipped!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 95" wide, 16 x 9, motorized, drop down with extra drop, black backing material and a black case. Hopefully it will arrive before the weekend. If so, I'll try to install it this weekend. I'll try to take pics of the crating, unpacking and install for anyone interested. It's going on a dropped acoustical tile ceiling, so I may need to get "creative" with the mounting.



Craig - did you get the screen installed? Did it arrive in OK condition? How does the fit and finish seem? I'm seriously considering the 90" (103" 16:9) version as an alternative to a complicated DIY that would hang in front of my existing A/V center and have to be moved in/out as needed, partially fold on both ends for getting it to the basement and accessing my equipment cabinets, nevermind figuring out how to attach it without making any non-reversible mods.


I'm really interested to hear anything you can tell me from the quality/operation of the unit to how it looks (moire, texture, etc.)


----------



## Doug G

Sorry for the double-post but one other question since Chris seems indisposed for the last couple days as he hasn't replied yet to any of my inquiries. (And since I got approval from the CFO I want to be able to execute before the wind direction changes or the budget gets slashed!







)


Can someone tell me whether or not the lower limit on the drop is adjustable? I want to use my PJ in several different locations before I decide where to permanently mount it and while the screen drop shouldn't change that much, it might by a few inches or so. I don't want to have to rely on the "press stop but there's processing delay so anywhere within and inch" method since I won't be able to consistently get the same drop every time.


----------



## craig john

Doug,


I'm going to have to get back to you on this. I have had some delays in my HT make-over. The guy who was installing my dropped ceiling got injured (eye injury) and that delayed everything about 2 weeks. He is better now and should have it finished tonight. After that, I will install the screen. From what I've seen by opening the box, the casework looks great. Chris Seymour has been terrific to work with. I'll post more after I finish the install.


I believe the "stops" are adjustable. Chris can confirm.


Craig


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Doug G* /forum/post/13547304
> 
> 
> Can someone tell me whether or not the lower limit on the drop is adjustable? I want to use my PJ in several different locations before I decide where to permanently mount it and while the screen drop shouldn't change that much, it might by a few inches or so. I don't want to have to rely on the "press stop but there's processing delay so anywhere within and inch" method since I won't be able to consistently get the same drop every time.



The lower limits are somewhat adjustable. You can change them within an inch or two without having to adjust the tension cables. Raising the bottom limit is easier than lowering it, since you won't face running out of tension cable. I put the cable anchor points on the roller to allow you an inch or so lower, but unless you tell me to give lots of extra "down" cable, you can only do so much. I'll otherwise keep everything tidy inside.


Raising the bottom limits is fine with the only caveat that you may face adjusting the tension cables. This is fairly easy to do, since they feature mini steel turnbuckles. I say fairly, because I do put a drop of mild thread glue to make sure they won't move unless someone wants them to.


The current series (starting this March) of standard motors feature electric limits, which are fully adjustable via the remote. I'll put together an instruction manual when I can. It's easy, but you'd need to know what's going on.


The prior series of standard motors feature mechanical limits. They're also easy to adjust, but you'd need a little hex wrench to turn the pots.


The Somfy motors are also remotely adjustable. I currently use the wall switch to program the limits, since it's easy plug-and-play. I presume they can be programmed remotely another way, but I haven't crossed that bridge yet.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Doug G

Chris - Thanks, that all sounds great. Once I get my PJ QC'd and installed I plan to run some test screenings to determine best compromise of neck comfort/lens shift (which I'll be near the limit on.) Once I determine the optimal drop sounds like I'll be placing an order!


----------



## Ayla

Hi


I have been reading this thread with great interest.


Very positive feedback on Chris. Are there any A/B comparisons available, versus other screens?


I'm considering buying this screen as 2.35:1 to use with a Marantz VP11S1.


My viewing distance is about 10 feet. I can ceilingmount the projector where I want.


The screen is going to hang in front of a 60" Pioneer Kuro Elite. I have 8.2 feet between my front right and left speakers which are hanging on the wall.


My room is only 90% dark (will never be a batcave, sadly) and I have white walls/ceiling.


Will this screen be a good choice with this setup and how big can I go for screensize (I'd like to go as big as possible, while maintaining good picture quality)?


PS. Does the new Somfy motors work in Europe (220v)?


Thanks

Martin


----------



## mlbrand

Ayla,


I am doing the same setup you are considering, as I have a SeymourAV screen that rolls down in front of my Pioneer 64" HD-RPTV. This is a great combination, and I love the flexibility of the setup, and how well it integrates into a multi-purpose family room!







I also really like the performance of this screen material, as I think it gives the best combination of great looking video, and excellent sound transparency for a more realistic audio presentation. I am very picky on my audio and video quality, and this screen material gets high marks from me on both.


A few notes and suggestions. Be sure to get the black backing on your screen with your white walls and ambient light. This will help cut down on reflections from your TV and the white walls behind the screen. How big your screen is depends on your projector brightness. I have a Sony VW40 that I am using on a 115" wide 2.35 screen (126" diagonal). I use a constant height setup, and my 16:9 HDTV and 1.85 movies are at 100" diagonal. I am pleased with my brightness, though I will say that the 100" screen looks better if I have much light in the room, such as during the day, or when I have my blinds open. With your speaker locations it appears to me that a screen of 96" to 115" wide would be about right for a 2.35 screen for proper sound location. What is the actual output of lumens for your projector when used in best, calibrated mode? I see that your projector is rated at 700 lumens, but as you may know max ratings don't mean much.


Feel free to ask more questions.


Best regards,


Mike


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ayla* /forum/post/13581466
> 
> 
> Are there any A/B comparisons available, versus other screens?



Hi Martin -


The only comparison testing out there thus far is an extensive review written by mechman over at HT Shack, where he compares it to his gray laminate screen:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...ge-screen.html 


One notable is that the closeup pic was not color corrected like his screenshots were. The material is NOT gray looking, but is a bright neutral white.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ayla* /forum/post/13581466
> 
> 
> My viewing distance is about 10 feet.



I recommend checking out a sample first. At 10 feet, those with acute vision can make out the texture if they're looking for it. It may not be bothersome - several are using it up to the minimum 8 feet - but it'd be safer to confirm that the texture is acceptable to you in your HT. Just email or PM me for a letter-size sample, or if you need larger they are available.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ayla* /forum/post/13581466
> 
> 
> The screen is going to hang in front of a 60" Pioneer Kuro Elite.



Hanging the screen in front of a flat panel or other type of TV is a common application for this screen. Being retractable and AT is a great solution for dual-use areas like this. You'll need to have the black backing layer to make sure your Kuro doesn't reflect back through.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ayla* /forum/post/13581466
> 
> 
> My room is only 90% dark (will never be a batcave, sadly) and I have white walls/ceiling. Will this screen be a good choice with this setup and how big can I go for screensize (I'd like to go as big as possible, while maintaining good picture quality)?



I cannot recommend enough the benefit of $20 in darker paint for your ceiling (higher priority - you'll get a surprising amount of splash up there with nearly any screen) and your walls. Going ANY shade darker will help. White surfaces can set your projector's contrast back 5 years. At least you have good light control, so you won't have to resort to the color shifting and uniformity problems from higher gain screens. Mech's review does show some ambient light shots in comparison to his gray, so you can get a decent idea what it'll look like.


Mike's right on that you CAN do up to around 115" in a 2.35 format with the VP11S1, depending on how bright it is in real world conditions vs. your personal preferences. Some lean towards wanting that head-turning immersive feeling, while going a little smaller will help boost your image dynamics and smooth out motion. If I had the VP11S1 (and white ceiling/walls), I'd probably go towards a couple sizes smaller. At 10' and 115" wide, you'd be at a head-turning 51.2 degrees. I only recommend that huge to those who have lived with viewing angles that large and know they want (or NEED) more.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ayla* /forum/post/13581466
> 
> 
> PS. Does the new Somfy motors work in Europe (220v)?



I've only sold the standard RF motors into Europe (220v), but I'm sure I can get the Somfy's in 220v. I'd need to call my rep, but it shouldn't be an issue.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Ayla




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/13589688
> 
> 
> Ayla,
> 
> 
> I am doing the same setup you are considering, as I have a SeymourAV screen that rolls down in front of my Pioneer 64" HD-RPTV. This is a great combination, and I love the flexibility of the setup, and how well it integrates into a multi-purpose family room!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also really like the performance of this screen material, as I think it gives the best combination of great looking video, and excellent sound transparency for a more realistic audio presentation. I am very picky on my audio and video quality, and this screen material gets high marks from me on both.
> 
> 
> A few notes and suggestions. Be sure to get the black backing on your screen with your white walls and ambient light. This will help cut down on reflections from your TV and the white walls behind the screen. How big your screen is depends on your projector brightness. I have a Sony VW40 that I am using on a 115" wide 2.35 screen (126" diagonal). I use a constant height setup, and my 16:9 HDTV and 1.85 movies are at 100" diagonal. I am pleased with my brightness, though I will say that the 100" screen looks better if I have much light in the room, such as during the day, or when I have my blinds open. With your speaker locations it appears to me that a screen of 96" to 115" wide would be about right for a 2.35 screen for proper sound location. What is the actual output of lumens for your projector when used in best, calibrated mode? I see that your projector is rated at 700 lumens, but as you may know max ratings don't mean much.
> 
> 
> Feel free to ask more questions.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Mike



Thanks for the feedback Mike!


I'm actually considering getting the VP15S1 instead of the VP11S1, it's rated at 1000 Lumens (instead of 700 Lumens).


Maybe that would be a better choice when I have ambient light and light walls/ceiling.


I'll address the screensize issue in my reply to Chris's post on the next page.


Thx again









Martin


----------



## Ayla




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/13592227
> 
> 
> Hi Martin -
> 
> 
> The only comparison testing out there thus far is an extensive review written by mechman over at HT Shack, where he compares it to his gray laminate screen:
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...ge-screen.html
> 
> 
> One notable is that the closeup pic was not color corrected like his screenshots were. The material is NOT gray looking, but is a bright neutral white.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend checking out a sample first. At 10 feet, those with acute vision can make out the texture if they're looking for it. It may not be bothersome - several are using it up to the minimum 8 feet - but it'd be safer to confirm that the texture is acceptable to you in your HT. Just email or PM me for a letter-size sample, or if you need larger they are available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanging the screen in front of a flat panel or other type of TV is a common application for this screen. Being retractable and AT is a great solution for dual-use areas like this. You'll need to have the black backing layer to make sure your Kuro doesn't reflect back through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot recommend enough the benefit of $20 in darker paint for your ceiling (higher priority - you'll get a surprising amount of splash up there with nearly any screen) and your walls. Going ANY shade darker will help. White surfaces can set your projector's contrast back 5 years. At least you have good light control, so you won't have to resort to the color shifting and uniformity problems from higher gain screens. Mech's review does show some ambient light shots in comparison to his gray, so you can get a decent idea what it'll look like.
> 
> 
> Mike's right on that you CAN do up to around 115" in a 2.35 format with the VP11S1, depending on how bright it is in real world conditions vs. your personal preferences. Some lean towards wanting that head-turning immersive feeling, while going a little smaller will help boost your image dynamics and smooth out motion. If I had the VP11S1 (and white ceiling/walls), I'd probably go towards a couple sizes smaller. At 10' and 115" wide, you'd be at a head-turning 51.2 degrees. I only recommend that huge to those who have lived with viewing angles that large and know they want (or NEED) more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've only sold the standard RF motors into Europe (220v), but I'm sure I can get the Somfy's in 220v. I'd need to call my rep, but it shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Hi Chris


Thanks for the reply!


I have read the HT Shack review and it looked very promising.


I have perfect vision but I didn't think it would be possible at all to see texture from 3 meters (10 feet).


I would certainly get the black backing!


I actually thought the screenshots at HT Shack looked very good with ambient lighting. Yes the paint is cheap, the manhours are not










Also, it's not a dedicated HT room sadly, but a living room. I guess I could hire a painter one day in the foreseeable future.


I would like to avoid the headturning but I would also like to go as big as possible in screensize.


The "problem" is that I have about 98 inches between my left and right (wallmounted) speakers. If I go smaller than that there would be no reason to get an AT screen, I could just buy a "normal" electric screen?


My center is mounted rather low so the screen would never go in front of the center.


PS. As I replied to Mike, I'm considering the VP15S1 instead of the VP11S1, I can get them at the same price here. The VP-15S1 is rated at 1000 lumens instead of 700. I don't know how important that is, when considering my "light" room?


Regards

Martin


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ayla* /forum/post/13595115
> 
> 
> Hi Chris
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply!
> 
> 
> I have read the HT Shack review and it looked very promising.
> 
> 
> I have perfect vision but I didn't think it would be possible at all to see texture from 3 meters (10 feet).
> 
> 
> I would certainly get the black backing!
> 
> 
> I actually thought the screenshots at HT Shack looked very good with ambient lighting. Yes the paint is cheap, the manhours are not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, it's not a dedicated HT room sadly, but a living room. I guess I could hire a painter one day in the foreseeable future.
> 
> 
> I would like to avoid the headturning but I would also like to go as big as possible in screensize.
> 
> 
> The "problem" is that I have about 98 inches between my left and right (wallmounted) speakers. If I go smaller than that there would be no reason to get an AT screen, I could just buy a "normal" electric screen?
> 
> 
> My center is mounted rather low so the screen would never go in front of the center.
> 
> 
> PS. As I replied to Mike, I'm considering the VP15S1 instead of the VP11S1, I can get them at the same price here. The VP-15S1 is rated at 1000 lumens instead of 700. I don't know how important that is, when considering my "light" room?
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Martin



Martin,


A brighter projector is always better when you have issues with ambient light, as long as you are not giving up too much on black levels or color accuracy. This does not appear to be an issue with the high quality projectors you are looking at.


As far as being able to see "screen texture", I have excellent vision and could occasionally see it at 11' with my old 720p projector, but when I upgraded to a 1080p projector whatever I was seeing seemed to go away. I also believe a brighter projector helps to minimize chances of seeing screen weave as well. IMHO seeing "screen texture" is unlikely to be a problem for you.


As far as more comments on screen size, I agree that you should go as big as possible, especially if you get a 2.35 ratio screen and a brighter projector. When you watch 16:9 TV or movies on a 2.35 screen your image will be smaller if you keep the original aspect ratio (highly recommended). On a 115" wide 2.35 screen a 16:9 image is around 100" diagonal. This is the size I view and really like at my 11' viewing distance. Since you are at 10' distance a 110" screen should be fine as well.


Have you considered a constant image height (CIH) setup? If not you should look into it, as this will improve brightness and picture quality of a 2.35 movie. Here is a link to a company in Finland where I bought my lens for my CIH setup. They have an excellent explanation of what an anamorphic lens does, and why they are nice to have. http://www.prismasonic.com There is also a good forum discussion area on CIH here at AVS http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117 


Mike


----------



## Ayla




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/13595245
> 
> 
> Martin,
> 
> 
> A brighter projector is always better when you have issues with ambient light, as long as you are not giving up too much on black levels or color accuracy. This does not appear to be an issue with the high quality projectors you are looking at.
> 
> 
> As far as being able to see "screen texture", I have excellent vision and could occasionally see it at 11' with my old 720p projector, but when I upgraded to a 1080p projector whatever I was seeing seemed to go away. I also believe a brighter projector helps to minimize chances of seeing screen weave as well. IMHO seeing "screen texture" is unlikely to be a problem for you.
> 
> 
> As far as more comments on screen size, I agree that you should go as big as possible, especially if you get a 2.35 ratio screen and a brighter projector. When you watch 16:9 TV or movies on a 2.35 screen your image will be smaller if you keep the original aspect ratio (highly recommended). On a 115" wide 2.35 screen a 16:9 image is around 100" diagonal. This is the size I view and really like at my 11' viewing distance. Since you are at 10' distance a 110" screen should be fine as well.
> 
> 
> Have you considered a constant image height (CIH) setup? If not you should look into it, as this will improve brightness and picture quality of a 2.35 movie. Here is a link to a company in Finland where I bought my lens for my CIH setup. They have an excellent explanation of what an anamorphic lens does, and why they are nice to have. http://www.prismasonic.com There is also a good forum discussion area on CIH here at AVS http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117
> 
> 
> Mike



Great info Mike, thank you.


I think I will go with the VP-15S1 then to get the most Lumens.


It is my first projector and I'm not able to see it in action before I buy (very limited market in Denmark). But I am able to audition another DLP projector (Planar, 4x color wheel I think), to make sure I don't see any rainbows before I go DLP.


If 110" 2.35:1 is the best size for me, I'm not sure I would need an AT screen. A 110" is about 96" wide and I have 98" between my L R speakers?


Thanks Mike, I have looked at the lenses, I guess I need one for my 2.35:1 screen. I was considering the just released Panamorph UH480, looks like a great lens!


I'm very confused about all the "calculations" I need to make. How high should I mount the projector, how far back, how high should I mount the screen, with the UH480 in front of the pj, how does that affect where I should mount it. It's all very confusing, but I bet I'm gonna love it when it's all set up!










Regards

Martin


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ayla* /forum/post/13595270
> 
> 
> Great info Mike, thank you.
> 
> 
> I think I will go with the VP-15S1 then to get the most Lumens.



I think that's a wise choice.



> Quote:
> It is my first projector and I'm not able to see it in action before I buy (very limited market in Denmark). But I am able to audition another DLP projector (Planar, 4x color wheel I think), to make sure I don't see any rainbows before I go DLP.



Most of us in the US don't get to see our projectors before we buy them either. There are very few A/V stores that have projector setups, and if they do it's either not the projector you are looking for, or not set up right.



> Quote:
> If 110" 2.35:1 is the best size for me, I'm not sure I would need an AT screen. A 110" is about 96" wide and I have 98" between my L R speakers?



For a 2.35 screen many people talk width and not diagonal dimensions. So Chris and I meant a 110" wide screen, which is around 120" diagonal.



> Quote:
> Thanks Mike, I have looked at the lenses, I guess I need one for my 2.35:1 screen. I was considering the just released Panamorph UH480, looks like a great lens!



I just wanted to make sure you were aware of anamorphic lenses and their benefits. I've heard good things about Panamorph too.



> Quote:
> I'm very confused about all the "calculations" I need to make. How high should I mount the projector, how far back, how high should I mount the screen, with the UH480 in front of the pj, how does that affect where I should mount it. It's all very confusing, but I bet I'm gonna love it when it's all set up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Martin



The best thing to do to figure out your calculations is to download the manual for the projector you are buying, and see what it says. There is a lot of difference in how projectors should be set up and installed.


Mike


----------



## DennisLJacob

WOW, finally got my screen up and installed. Wow what a beautiful picture. I’m using a Epson Pro 1080UB about 14 feet away on a 105” wide, 120” diagonal 16:9 screen with the black AT backing. I do not notice the weave in the fabric with seating at 12 feet and back. The quality and workmanship in the screen is beautiful. The design is top notch as well and well executed. I’m not getting any puckers or waves in the screen either. I’m also not getting any moiré imaging on the screen with my LCD projector. I am losing about a 1 db drop in audio volume – so nothing to worry about there. Chris has done a wonderful job of designing a screen with many installation options . I’d prefer a little bit longer power cord option, but I can live with the 118 incher. Being a weakling, it took three guys to lift and install the screen. But once I figured out how much tilt to use to align the case to the hanging bracket installation went well.


So overall – a big thank you to Chris for a well made wonderful powered AT screen. It’s a great value also. I don’t know where else you can get this high a quality screen with a motorized AT design, and implement it at this high a performance, made in America for the low prices Chris charges. I’d recommend Chris and his screens to anyone looking for a fine, well made screen with a high value to price ratio. Even if you don’t need an AT screen or the motorized feature – the screen is still a great value.


Dennis


----------



## chadcummings

Ignore my post...all I should say is CHRIS needed to rest...it was the sabbath.


----------



## V.X.Donique

Be patient, Chris is a busy man......


It could be a little frustrating, but when you get the quotes you'll be happy you got them. It took him awhile to get mine.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chadcummings* /forum/post/13799822
> 
> 
> Question is, what does it take to get a quote for a screen from Chris? I have emailed and no answer. Kinda like another DIYer that started his own screen business...no answers.



Yeah, he should get back to you shortly, or you might try calling him from the phone number listed on his web site, 515 450 5694.


----------



## DennisLJacob

Here are some pricing for you. It is under the order now option on the home page. But here is a link if you want a quick estimate of prices.


Dennis

http://seymourav.com/store.asp


----------



## chadcummings

Ignore my impatience. Chris got back to me with some good questions that has my head spinning with dunno's and questioning my own reasoning.


Same story as many people. My viewing distance will be somewhere around 10' for my first row. I want to go 2.35 and looks like 110" wide is what I am going to go with. Based on what many people say I will go with the in between, not 120" and not 100", just a good 110" wide screen with velcro on the back and a good 2" border in addition around the sides at a 15 deg offset.


Sorry I ever doubted you Chris.


Sorry to get off topic for a sec but...


I will not be starting my actual build for about a year as I am in Afghanistan but I am designing and buying pieces as I go so all I have to do is get home and start assembly.


I will post my entire build process to the group as I go since all my inspiration has come from many of you and people like Ruben. But I am working on the cheap on my speakers and refuse to upgrade them. I was fortunate enough that before I got married a few years back I had bought a 7.1 setup made up of decent Klipsch Synergy speakers.


After my screen purchase I am working on with Chris, all I have to do is buy a PJ and a pre/pro setup. I will be doing an IB made up of 4 Tempest-X 15's behind my screen.


Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated...PM or email me. [email protected] 


CAV Pride!


----------



## pottscb

Hey guys,

Can someone PM me a ballpark street price for a 100" electric AT, I know retail prices on the site are all>$1200 but that can't be street from what I've read? The Elite AT which I had hoped for hasn't reviewed well in the AT department...thanks.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/13842857
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> Can someone PM me a ballpark street price for a 100" electric AT, I know retail prices on the site are all>$1200 but that can't be street from what I've read? The Elite AT which I had hoped for hasn't reviewed well in the AT department...thanks.



The prices on the SeymourAV web site are correct, and VERY reasonable for the quality of screen you are buying. Any other AT screen with decent performance and high quality materials (not Elite) will cost 2-3 times as much. SeymourAV is an internet direct type of company, so they don't sell their screens through retail chains. This lets them charge lower prices, as there is no "middle man". The quality and performance of the SeymourAV screens will blow away anything from Elite, or any other company for that matter.


If the ready made prices are too much for your budget, you can buy the screen material from Seymour, and make your own. I did this myself, and it works pretty well, but have just ordered a ready made screen so I can have all the "bells and whistles".


----------



## DennisLJacob

When you compare the prices between SMX which uses a similar, if not the same material, the price of Chris' screens are a bargain. Then when you compare his screens to Stewart or others that use micro perf, Chris' screen material layout doesn't lend itself to moiré problems. Using a weave type material on a diagonal design has eliminated moiré issues. The tab tension design keeps wrinkles under control. The fit and finish of the screen, border and case are top notch. So really I think Chris doesn't have a peer in the price range of the screens. I love my screen and the picture is just incomparable. I'm using a Epson pro 1080 UB mounted about 14 feet back from the screen with a 105 inch wide 16:9 form. I'm not having any screen issues. No moiré, no wrinkles, no light reflections back through the screen with use of the black backing material. I'm using the standard motor, which is a little bit slower than the Somfy and maybe a little bit louder - but really those are minor points. I don't see a reason to pay the premium for the Somfy motor option. But if you want that motor it is available. I can't recommend Chris' screens enough. I place audio performance higher than most, so doing Chris' AT screen design was important for me. I don't believe I would have been happy with the micro perf screens. Especially with the moiré problems using LCD type projectors. I don't think you'll be disappointed if you go with Chris and his AT screen.


Dennis


----------



## chriscmore

...third what Dennis and mlbrand say... (thanks!)


Yes, "street" is what the site shows. For 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the major screen companies' "AT" screens, you get at least 2.4x the hole density (e.g. no EQ, closer speaker and viewing minimums, no moire) and real fabric velvet borders, not that grey fuzzy-edged painted crap.



In other news, I know I still owe a GoM report regarding its sound transparency vs black backing, as well as light opacity, etc. It's on the list, but orders and emails always take priority.


The installation guide has been updated. I know I still need to put Somfy-specific information in there. Now that some are being built, I'll upgrade it later.


The DIY guide has also been updated, thanks to some feedback - especially from Alan DeAngulo. Hopefully it's more helpful now and increases the proportion of folks who claim "it was cake" versus "it caused my divorce."


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## airliner

Hi Chris, I've just got my screen fabric, well packed and shipped.


----------



## Doug G

Could someone with a current model Seymour motorized screen tell me, how centered is the screen plane with respect to the front/back of the case? Does it change (with rolled diameter) as the screen is dropped/retracted or is it fairly static (like through a guide)?


I'm trying to plan how far offset from my A/V cabinet I'll need to mount the case on the ceiling above it to keep the gap to a minimum but also keep it from making any contact during up/down operation.


----------



## Doug G

All set. Chris got back to me with great info on this. Thanks, Chris!


----------



## Doug G

Just got my shipping notification on Thu and am eagerly awaiting arrival of my SeymourAV CenterStage screen!! Planning my install and adding an outlet in the ceiling today so I can just hang it and start watching but have one last question.


Can someone tell me, does the batten roll up entirely into the case when the screen is fully retracted? Or is some amount left outside the case and it sticks out past the rear of the case? I'm trying to determine how far beyond the edge of the crown molding (which sticks out 2" from the top of my A/V cabinet) I should allow in mounting so nothing hits on the way down. Naturally I want to position the screen as close as possible without risking any contact with anything.


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Doug -


Ideally everything rolls up back flush into the case. There's a strip of color-matched foam trim along the bottom of the case, which dampens case vibrations (quiets things down) and helps to hide the bar and black blacking. Since the screen uses real fabric velvet for the borders, it has some variability in how it packs up and rolls up, so you may see a little of the black backing or bottom edge of the bar peeking out if you're looking up at the case. On black cases, it's hard to see; on your white case it'll be easier to see.


While it's never happened to anyone, I like the black backing to err on the side of peeking out of the case a little so it can't get hung up in the case and mis-behave. There are corner ties to ensure it rolls down with the screen, but I make sure I can see the edge of that layer to make sure it behaves properly.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/13844277
> 
> 
> 
> In other news, I know I still owe a GoM report regarding its sound transparency vs black backing, as well as light opacity, etc. It's on the list, but orders and emails always take priority.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Hi Chris, that was my request.

Thanks for keeping it on the to do list.

Much appreciated.


----------



## DougMac

I'm about to order Seymour material for my 96x54 screen. I'll be using an Optoma HD70 DLP and will be seated 11-12 ft.


On the Seymour site, Chris says tilting the fabric 15 degrees isn't absolutely necessary. It will cost twice as much to put the screen on a 15 degree bias.


Has anyone used a DLP screen with the fabric straight?


Any words of wisdom will be appreciated.


Doug


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DougMac* /forum/post/14087450
> 
> 
> I'm about to order Seymour material for my 96x54 screen. I'll be using an Optoma HD70 DLP and will be seated 11-12 ft.
> 
> 
> On the Seymour site, Chris says tilting the fabric 15 degrees isn't absolutely necessary. It will cost twice as much to put the screen on a 15 degree bias.
> 
> 
> Has anyone used a DLP screen with the fabric straight?
> 
> 
> Any words of wisdom will be appreciated.
> 
> 
> Doug



Go with the 15 degree angled fabric. I have used both straight and angled, and the PQ with the angled material is better even with projectors with minimal pixel structure. I started out with a non-angled screen, and it was fine with my 720p Panasonic 900, but as soon as I tried some 1080p projectors moire' started showing up, sometimes worse than others depending on the projector. My buddies 1080p Mitsubishi 4900 had REALLY bad moire' due its very defined pixel structure, while my recently purchased Sony VW40 (LCOS) had much less moire', but still enough to bother me. I suggest you do it right the first time, or you will eventually regret it.


----------



## tony123

mlbrand, I've also got the PanasonicAE900. I just got my sample piece from Chris (thanks).


Based on your comments, and my viewing, I can't see any moire. However, it sounds like you are strongly advising to get the angled fabric regardless. Particularly, I will be making the upgrade to 1080p at some point myself.


Thanks for your comments.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tony123* /forum/post/14156055
> 
> 
> mlbrand, I've also got the PanasonicAE900. I just got my sample piece from Chris (thanks).
> 
> 
> Based on your comments, and my viewing, I can't see any moire. However, it sounds like you are strongly advising to get the angled fabric regardless. Particularly, I will be making the upgrade to 1080p at some point myself.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your comments.



Tony,


Yes, I would definitely go angled to future proof your screen. My Sony has some of the most "film like" non pixelated pictures of any projector, but there was still a little bit of moire' visible with the straight screen, mainly on scenes with a large area of a solid color, like sky shots, etc.


I would also recommend getting the black backing, unless you have very dark walls behind your screen. I did not have the black backing on my DIY screen, but went with it on the screen that SeyourAV built for me. I was surprised at how much the backing helps PQ. I have a lot of black gear behind my screen, with small openings to tan walls, and the contrast ratio and black levels still really improved with the black backing. I don't notice any change in sound characteristics either, movies still sound great.


----------



## mlbrand

I've been busy this summer, but I've been able to watch a few good movies on my new electric screen from SeymourAV. This screen and my Sony VW40 are a great combo!







When I get time I will post some screen shots. I also need to sell my DIY Phifer screen material when I get around to it. Check in later.


Mike


----------



## blader819

Hi all -- after much searching at the end of last year, I ordered a 120" wide screen to hang in front of my flat-panel TV, and mounted on the ceiling.


I found the ordering process easy and Chris' expertise with my many questions to be extremely helpful, and once I got the screen mounted, it's been everything I could have hoped for.


About 4 months into use, I had what sounds like a pretty rare issue with my motor (actually, all Seymour screens now use a different motor than mine), and the screen was stuck in the down position.


I wrote to Chris for help, and he knew immediately what the issue was. His response was prompt.


I was having serious nausea about the idea of dismounting the screen from the ceiling, finding some way to pack it up, and shipping it back out to Iowa. I mentioned this to Chris.


Chris' response was to FLY to my house, in Boston, get a hotel room, all on his own dime, to fix it. He came out in less than a week, on a weekend, and we (really he, I sort of sat there and stared) took the screen down, made some attempt to repair the old motor, and then installed a brand new one, reassembled the screen, and remounted it on the ceiling. Chris also took the time to make a few tweaks to my screen to improve things. It is back to working perfectly.


While I have no doubt that this kind of issue is vanishingly rare and that Chris is not forced to fly about the country fixing screens, I have to say that it was the single best customer service experience of my life. Even after a long flight with a delay in Newark, of all places, and spending many hours repairing the screen on a Saturday night, with both of us tired and hungry, Chris was pleasant, professional, and I can't say enough good things about him or his product.


Frank


----------



## scottyb

WOW WOW WOW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blader819* /forum/post/14402276
> 
> 
> Hi all -- after much searching at the end of last year, I ordered a 120" wide screen to hang in front of my flat-panel TV, and mounted on the ceiling.
> 
> 
> I found the ordering process easy and Chris' expertise with my many questions to be extremely helpful, and once I got the screen mounted, it's been everything I could have hoped for.
> 
> 
> About 4 months into use, I had what sounds like a pretty rare issue with my motor (actually, all Seymour screens now use a different motor than mine), and the screen was stuck in the down position.
> 
> 
> I wrote to Chris for help, and he knew immediately what the issue was. His response was prompt.
> 
> 
> I was having serious nausea about the idea of dismounting the screen from the ceiling, finding some way to pack it up, and shipping it back out to Iowa. I mentioned this to Chris.
> 
> 
> Chris' response was to FLY to my house, in Boston, get a hotel room, all on his own dime, to fix it. He came out in less than a week, on a weekend, and we (really he, I sort of sat there and stared) took the screen down, made some attempt to repair the old motor, and then installed a brand new one, reassembled the screen, and remounted it on the ceiling. Chris also took the time to make a few tweaks to my screen to improve things. It is back to working perfectly.
> 
> 
> While I have no doubt that this kind of issue is vanishingly rare and that Chris is not forced to fly about the country fixing screens, I have to say that it was the single best customer service experience of my life. Even after a long flight with a delay in Newark, of all places, and spending many hours repairing the screen on a Saturday night, with both of us tired and hungry, Chris was pleasant, professional, and I can't say enough good things about him or his product.
> 
> 
> Frank


----------



## mlbrand

Cool story! After meeting Chris when I picked up my screen, and seeing how much he cares about making a high quality product, this really doesn't surprise me. Though of course he can't afford to fly around the country very often (especially at todays ticket prices







), this story speaks volumes about his level of customer service and desire to get his product "right".


----------



## chriscmore

Thanks for the kudos, Frank -


It was touch and go there for a while if I was going to earn them at all that night, but I guess all's well that ends well. And it all stacked up to make those late-night crab cakes taste even better. I got your system pic (with its nixie tube clock coolness) up on the site now, too.



In other news, I'm rolling the black backing pricing into the base retractable screen pricing as a standard feature. About 95% of people with retractables need the black backing layer because there's something behind the screen that's typically worth looking at AND reflective (e.g. TV screen, artwork, window, etc.) or have medium to lighter color surfaces because it isn't a batcave room. It's the opposite with fixed; they rarely need the black backing layer because it's easier to make the surfaces dark behind the screen. We can still make the retractables without BB and would discount accordingly, but I'm just simplifying the pricing columns where I can.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

A bit of good news: The bulk DIY material pricing was reduced. Even though the base material costs are increasing (thanks, Bernanke - I made a voodoo doll in your likeness), and transportation costs are increasing like a Zimbabwe ice cream auction, it still needs to be a good price. We wouldn't want this hobby to go and get expensive or anything...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/14417962
> 
> 
> A bit of good news: The bulk DIY material pricing was reduced. Even though the base material costs are increasing (thanks, Bernanke - I made a voodoo doll in your likeness), and transportation costs are increasing like a Zimbabwe ice cream auction, it still needs to be a good price. We wouldn't want this hobby to go and get expensive or anything...
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Sweet! Can't wait to get my material and build me a real nice screen.


----------



## oman321

I wanted to repost my kudos to Chris, I felt his actions worthy of it.


Advanced Member

Join Date: Sep 2005

Location: MASS

Posts: 851

Wow.... I have to chime in and say how overly impressed I am with the customer service delivered by Chris and his company. That is simply unheard of. His dime, his time, his service unreal. Could have easily sent one of his workers if need be but came out himself, I am just astonished. I have told a few folks about SeymourAV who have been seeking screens (AT or otherwise) I will tell them all the more now.


To bad my DIY screen isn't done yet either or it would have been an opportunity for you to check it out as well Chris. Maybe you can go on tour sooner or later .


----------



## oman321

Here is one other missing post from Doug G.


Doug G

Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2001

Location: Andover, MA

Posts: 398 Chris!!! I can't believe you flew all the way out here and didn't even stop by to see me and one of your creations in action?!


But seriously, that is what I call SERVICE. This is exactly why I like dealing with smaller business, they simply value their customers more and this is good for everybody. It also generates word of mouth which is the best advertising money can't buy. I guarantee someone who's on the fence will read that post and it will win Chris the business in the end.


I'm going on two full months with my 104" CenterStage retractable screen and am still loving it. The picture quality is top notch and the ease of use is great. My wife has had two "solo" movie events for the kids while I was at work and she was easily able to operate the screen with no worries, unlike a custom removable screen as I originally intended to build that would have had to be hung on my A/V cabinet. This makes me really glad that everyone can get enjoyment out of the system even when I'm not around.


Even with the black backing I did have to mitigate some of the super-bright LEDs and displays in my glass-doored racks. Not that the backing wasn't effective, but I wanted to get rid of any hint of light that was really only visible in very, very dark scenes. I'm impressed that the screen returns to the proper position every time its raised and lowered, no tweaking necessary thus far to adjust any position drift. As another posted noted, my Pronto remote control wasn't powerful enough to work from more than 5-6 ft away, so I had to get a Xantech IR repeater setup which solved that problem beautifully. (BTW, if you're in the market for one of these I got mine from tselectronic and they had the best prices by a very considerable margin!)


The only problem I did have which seems to have gone away recently was a small wave at the very bottom of the screen, but now I suspect this was due to the temperature and humidity conditions in my house just after I hung it. With electricity costs so high the wife and I decided to go as long as possible this summer before using the A/C on any kind of regular basis. During that period the house was probably darn near 80 degrees with a fair amount of humidity and I think this probably resulted in just the smallest amount of expansion to the screen material. I think this, combined with my using the screen at a higher position than I had Chris set it up for, created this small issue. Certainly nothing I'm too worried about. Now that we've been running the A/C for several weeks and its consistently around 75-76 degrees with pretty low humidity, I haven't noticed the ripple appearing any longer. (It was only noticeable when viewing window-boxed 4:3 content off-axis.) When I originally inquired about adjusting the tension wires, Chris was nice enough to supply me with guidelines on how to adjust them but at this point I'm going to hold off doing anything until next spring just to see how it reacts to the fall/winter temps and humidity in the house. The last thing I want to do is compensate now and have it make things worse later on. Again, I have no empirical data to support this theory, its just an educated guess based on my observations and suspicions.


All in all, I couldn't be happier and I'm sure glad the whole of my "economic stimulus" rebate went to support a small business that makes an exceptional product and backs it up with first class customer service. Consider me another very satisfied SeymourAV customer!


----------



## bmwracer3

Thanks to Chris for his help during the decision process. Here's a pic of the nearly finished room. Thanks again to everyone here for their input!


----------



## Doug G

Oman321 - Thanks for re-posting that! Did you have this thread page open in a browser window right when the site went down? In any case, great work!


bmwracer3 - VERY nice! I admit that at first I wasn't sure what all the buzz was about 'scope screens, but now I know they'll be one in my future if I ever get around to doing a dedicated room like that!


----------



## oman321

Nope, I did a google search for this thread title.


At the end of each of the results they're usually a couple of links "Cached and Similar Pages". Somehow google stores recent internet pages on their server in case the site becomes inaccessible or corrupted. You click cached and if your lucky you get what your looking for. I was able to restore some missing posts on my own thread as well as a couple of other threads. Unfortunately though it's hit or miss, their were a couple of post from certain threads I was trying to get which I was unable to.


----------



## vishal

My father always wanted a home theater in his house but he has never had a dedicated space. The only option we had was to use the existing family room. We wanted to keep the room dual-purpose and yet still enjoy the benefits of a truly cinematic experience.


We accomplished this with an H100 electric drop-down screen from Chris Seymour at SeymourAV. The acoustically transparent material allows the speakers to disappear when lowered and provides the theater experience by combining the audio and video into one seamless presentation.


Special thanks to Chris who answered all of our questions from beginning to end. The product and service are truly fantastic.

*Equipment List:*
_Video_

Panasonic AE2000U Projector

SeymourAV H100 115" Diagonal Acoustically Transparent Screen

Panasonic DMP-BD30K Blu-ray Player

Toshiba HD-XA2 HD DVD Player

Motorola DCH3416 DVR with Cox Cable

_Audio_

Marantz SR7002 as Preamp

Sherbourn 7/2100 Amplifier

Jamo D7LCR (5) and D7SUR (2) THX Ultra2 Speakers

Epik Conquest Subwoofer

_Cabling_

Blue Jeans Cable Series-1 Belden 50' HDMI Cable

Speaker cable and interconnects from MonoPrice


Pictures:


----------



## mlbrand

Vishal,


Congratulations, that's a great setup that blends in well in a very attractive room. I'll bet your dad is proud of that!


You said exactly why I love the SeymourAV drop down screens, because you can have an awesome HT movie and audio setup in a multi-purpose room. I love watching my guests jaws drop when I drop down my screen and turn on the projector! They can't believe how good the video and audio quality is, as it surpasses what even our local theaters can do.


----------



## Doug G

+1


oman321 - Ah, yes. Cached pages on Google are very handy, used them a lot myself!


----------



## oman321

+2


Very nice vishal,

I love how the speakers appear to simply belong in that room as it complements the design and decor. Can you edit your post or add a post with a pic for your surround. I'd like to see how they look.


----------



## Doug G

Wow, I just realized I never posted my screen pics in this thread! I must have posted them in the PJ forum as part of the complete install. (You can see them on Chris's web site also)


Screen is an H090 with black backing, extended drop, de-badged and white case for WAF. Again, I couldn't be happier!


Screen up:











Screen down:


----------



## allredp

Wow, the rooms look fantstic!


What depth is recommended between the speaker fronts and the screen itself?


Thanks,

Phil


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *allredp* /forum/post/14537749
> 
> 
> Wow, the rooms look fantstic!
> 
> 
> What depth is recommended between the speaker fronts and the screen itself?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Phil



Phil,


Here's some info on this subject from the SeymourAV website;


"You can place the speakers up to approximately two inches from the screen surface, as long as you don't have ports with high velocity airflow. The deeper the bass that the speakers behind the screen are reproducing, the more you space you should give between them and the screen. You can place a subwoofer behind the screen as long as it is spaced at least 12 inches away and no ports are directed at the screen. If you can't blow out a candle with the subwoofer's air velocity, you won't move the screen."


And a link to the page this came from; http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp 


Mike


----------



## allredp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/14538362
> 
> 
> And a link to the page this came from; http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp
> 
> 
> Mike



Very cool, Mike!


Thanks for the help--I'm excited to give this a try as my center placement has been a thorn in my side...


----------



## vishal

I added pictures of the rest of the room to my post above. If there are any other questions about the SeymourAV screen, please post them here.


Any other questions can be posted in my dedicated thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1061250


----------



## chriscmore

Today we filed for a non-provisional utility patent for several Center Stage screen innovations. Starting next week we'll be indicating "patent pending" on our literature and descriptions of the several class-leading features that the Center Stage screen has.


We'll have two screens on display at CEDIA at booth 1063, in a fully-dynamic 1080p projected Blu-ray, 3-channel Ice Block amped, 3.1 Totem acoustic system. While the show acoustics will no doubt suck, we will be able to demonstrate the Center Stage innovations that are completely exclusive to retractable projection screens, and how having an identical, vertically-oriented center channel directly behind the image is the only proper audiophile configuration, and now without compromise to the image.


We'll also be showing a Somfy setup, all tied together to a LCD panel and Harmony 1000 touch screen remote with two buttons: "Watch TV" and "Watch a Movie." At the minimum I'll take pics for the thread, but I'm hoping to put together a little video after the show for folks who can't make it.


Our patent attorney, Marc Hankin, is also a CEDIA instructor and will be again teaching classes for those who are enrolled. We've worked with him over the past year because of his expertise with home theater companies and with his knowledge base he easily understood the innovations we were bringing to the projection screen market. I'll publish more specific details as they become available.


We'll be mostly shut down next week, with only a handful of people left to do things. At the show will be Steve Kropp, Steve Duff, and myself. Hope to see you there!


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## distoga

I was at CEDIA Thursday and stopped by the booth and *really* liked what I saw. The weave samples Seymour AV sends out to people who ask are nice but seeing the full screen was truly beautiful. I also realized later how quiet the motors are, I don't recall hearing even a whisper from them.


After going around the show checking out speakers and amps I must say those ice block amps were also really slick, the finish and craftsmanship plus the sound with them and the totems were well defined.


I wish my theater build was further along so I could be enjoying what I saw right now.


----------



## chriscmore

Hey Distoga -


Thanks for the compliments. Friday I had to put more masking around the booth to combat the ambient lighting and got things looking much more appropriate for a white screen. I'll check out your build thread soon, too. I'll be uploading CEDIA pics and hopefully a video tour for the folks who aren't at the show.


On a side note, the screen fabric manufacturer raised prices at the end of August. We'll be holding all pricing in spite of this.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Here are some pictures, video, and details from our CEDIA booth this year:

http://www.seymourav.com/CEDIA.asp 


Thanks to those who stopped by to chat - Kropp, Duff, and I all had a great time. It was a real pleasure being able to talk directly with the folks that previously we only knew via pixels.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/13302884
> 
> 
> Would using the Seymour black screen backing material be a better, i.e., more acoustically transparent option to GOM?
> 
> Thanks!



So far behind schedule that I doubt it'll help Milt99 anymore, but I did finally compile the results from some testing we had done on various black AT materials.


Black acoustically transparent materials are typically used to block light-blow through on AT screens (as a matter of practice, almost exclusively retractable ones), but can also be used to build false walls, speaker grills, door covers, or other areas where you want the sound to go through but still look black. By "better", a black AT material would ideally have the reflectivity of space, the opacity of a sheet of plywood, and the acoustic transparency of air. Since we don't yet have that, here are the three physical properties and how some various materials rank. I put in a few others for fun.

*Reflectivity*

A common question is how well will a black AT material suck up light, such as the overscan from a projected image? The current "reference" is Fidelio black velvet, and for good reason. This side of a black hole, it reflects less light than any other material we've come across. With best being on top, here are the results of a few black AT materials:











Here we can see various velvet and border materials perform better than AT black fabric (and *MUCH* better than black paint), which is obvious because they don't need to be AT and have an easier job. Here you can see that Fidelio is still king, but I'm proud that the Swiss velvet we use on our retractable screens is a close second, resulting in the only retractable in the world with true overscan absorption. Triple, a popular DIY velvet is third, Carada's does very well, and you can see the remaining fabrics really aren't that good at absorbing front lighting. As long as you're not projecting directly on the black AT fabric, this may be fine, and to answer the direct question, GoM is less reflective than our Black Backing material. It's fuzzier and has less sheen.

*Light Opacity*


If you were covering a window, equipment lighting, AT screen black backing, or making a burqa, how well the fabric blocks light travelling through it is important. Again with the best being on top, here are the results:











Here the direct answer to Milt99 is that the GoM is more light opaque than our black backing material is.

*Acoustical Transparency*


We've thus far seen that the GoM FR701 is better at masking light than our black backing material is. The final question is to what expense of the acoustical transparency? Here is a chart summarizing the dB attenuation from reference:











Here we can see that the GoM is technically acoustically transparent (performing better than perfed vinyl), but it's being thicker and fuzzier has a sonic cost. Conclusion: If you need more light blocking, go with GoM. If you need more sonic transparency for the job, go with our black backing. Let us know if you need a sample to play with.

*AT screen fabric ANSI performance*


On a side note, in our ongoing fabric test and development, we did some measurement of ANSI contrast ratios of various acoustically transparent screen fabrics and found that some can reduce your ANSI contrast ratio by up to 8%. This test was using a Panny 2000u, so while these overall numbers seem low, getting checkerboard contrast ratios from an LCD like this are pretty common. I could have got better overall numbers using our new Marantz VP11, but we're just showing relativity here:











Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Here are a couple more reasons why you should come down to Orlando in a few weeks to the Audioholics show:

$1000 for you, and a good cause.

At the Audioholics SOTU event, Seymour AV will be raffling off a $1000 credit toward any product with the proceeds going to the National Center for Conservation Science & Policy. The NCCSP is a non-profit organization that combs through conservation science's research studies and focuses the messages into actionable form for the community and our politicians. If you're considering one of our screens or some amps, you're could realize enough savings from the raffle to pay for your trip, do some environmental good, and have some fun in the process. Speaking of fun...










Have *Jerry* scoop you some of his ice cream for free!


Jerry Greenfield, Co-Founder of the company that brings us ultimate combinations of worldly tastiness , will be at the Audioholics SOTU event Friday around lunch time to personally scoop for you some of his complementary (e.g. "hey, nice shirt") ice cream. Currently enjoying his Seymour AV Center Stage screen, Jerry is a new addition to the world of those that enjoy home theater, quality acoustic and video experiences.

http://www.seymourav.com/audioholics.asp 


I'm not certain on the equipment we'll be bringing down. I doubt we'll haul the entire CEDIA booth down, but we'll have a screen in one of the full-sized demo rooms. Registration ends in less than a week, so hurry!!


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## sipester

One of the biggest issues I have with CIH systems is the cost in getting all the pieces together (scaler, lens, lens slide, masking, AT screen due to screen width). However, now that Panasonic has the AE3000 that gets rid of the need for the scaler, lens, and lens slide, the only hold-up for getting an inexpensive CIH setup is the darned masking systems (especially ones that are AT).


I just found this thread and based on the incredible pricing for Seymour's screens, it appears that you could easily get TWO Seymour screens for less than the price of any other single screen with masking that is AT.


For example, you could get the 49 * 115 2.35 screen for $1,675 and then the 50 * 90 16.9 screen for $1,448. That is a total of only $3,123 and seems much more appropriate for a $3,000 projector like the Panny AE3000 than the 10K plus screens and masking systems from the likes of Stewart and Screen Research.


So now that automatic zooming is starting to be included in some projectors (which reduces the costs of CIH set-ups), are more people going to look at dual projector screens? Or does Seymour have any plans for a masking system (but note it would need to be cheaper than the dual screens







)


----------



## mlbrand

sipester,


You raise a good point, and I think you are probably right that two screens is a simpler and cheaper solution for some people. However, it won't work for everyone. My main concerns with doing away with an anamorphic lens for a 2.35 setup are;


1. You will lose brightness and pixels by zooming. The brightness concern is of course a non-issue if you have plenty of lumens for your room/screen, but for most people this is usually an issue. Pixel loss will affect image quality, and is more of a concern on a larger screen, or on a 720p or lower res projector.


2. You will have extra light splash from zooming, so without a large masking system you must have very dark light absorbing walls/material etc. behind the screen.


So IMHO, two screens is a good solution if your projector is bright enough, and you have a good way to take care of light overspill on your back wall/floors/ceiling. If not, or if you are really picky about having the best possible 2.35 PQ (that's me), then an anamorphic lens and a projector that does the proper scaling is the better way to go. You can pick up a pretty good lens for about $1,500 bucks, and the projectors that do the scaling don't cost any more, so I think the cost factor is a wash.


----------



## fteixeira




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/14985224
> 
> 
> 1. You will lose brightness and pixels by zooming.



Brightness yes, pixels no. There are only so many pixels encoded on disc, so the scaler is doing scaling, which may smooth out the picture a bit depending on interpolation, but there is NO additional pixel information.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/14985224
> 
> 
> You can pick up a pretty good lens for about $1,500 bucks, and the projectors that do the scaling don't cost any more, so I think the cost factor is a wash.



Projectors and lenses are available, but good affordable masking solutions are not. Just look at how many folks on AVS are attempting DIY masking solutions. The Carada masquerade fixed-screen solution is not CIH and costs $2300+!


I agree with sipester... a two screen setup is intriguing, but mlsbrand's comment of light spillage without enough blackout edging is definitely a concern. My question is: Seymour is already providing tremendous quality and affordability with their AT screens, when will we see a complimentary masking system? Needless to say, I'm interested!


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fteixeira* /forum/post/14987006
> 
> 
> Brightness yes, pixels no. There are only so many pixels encoded on disc, so the scaler is doing scaling, which may smooth out the picture a bit depending on interpolation, but there is NO additional pixel information.
> 
> 
> ...when will we see a complimentary masking system? Needless to say, I'm interested!



This can be a complicated issue to understand, but you definitely do lose resolution/pixels _from the projector_ if you zoom without scaling/stretching the image. By using the projectors full panel for 2.35 movies, you gain 33% in resolution, which is the panel area/pixels that are doing the light spillage when you zoom. Those extra pixels causing the light spillage are being thrown away. Now, I do agree that you are NOT increasing the resolution from _the source_, you are just spreading them over more of the panel/pixels in the projector, but this still improves PQ and increases _projector_ resolution. Read this excellent FAQ on CIH if you have not seen it; http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=554901 


As far as masking, this is pretty difficult for an AT situation, especially for a roll down screen, and if your mains are behind a 2.35 screen, like mine are. If I masked a 1.85 movie on my screen, the masking would be right in front of my speakers, possibly negatively affecting the audio. I have considered using some of the AT black backing material that Seymour uses for masking and velcro-ing them in place on the sides of 1.85/1.78 films, but have not got around to it yet. It seems like a lot of hassle to me when no masking on the sides doesn't really bother me that much. My room is pretty dark, so that probably helps.


----------



## sipester




mlbrand said:


> sipester,
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You will lose brightness and pixels by zooming. The brightness concern is of course a non-issue if you have plenty of lumens for your room/screen, but for most people this is usually an issue. Pixel loss will affect image quality, and is more of a concern on a larger screen, or on a 720p or lower res projector.
> 
> 
> 2. You will have extra light splash from zooming, so without a large masking system you must have very dark light absorbing walls/material etc. behind the screen.
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> I have dark green paint on the walls and ceiling, so light spill isn't an issue and loss of light isn't too big a deal either since the room is so dark. However, my main point is that if you do want to have two separately sized screens, your options are to have 2 different screens or use masking on one screen. Based on everything I have found, using 2 Seymour screens (one 16:9, the other 2:35) is far cheaper than any other AT screen with masking, would anyone disagree with that?


----------



## stef2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/14987126
> 
> 
> Now, I do agree that you are NOT increasing the resolution from _the source_, you are just spreading them over more of the panel/pixels in the projector, but this still improves PQ and increases _projector_ resolution.



It does not necessarily lead to improved PQ. Scaling an image to a higher resolution SOMETIMES improves the PQ. It depends on the scaler, among other things...


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sipester* /forum/post/14988201
> 
> 
> Based on everything I have found, using 2 Seymour screens (one 16:9, the other 2:35) is far cheaper than any other AT screen with masking, would anyone disagree with that?



I would agree with your premise, for those TWO (most common) aspect ratios. However, for the older classic 1.33:1 ratio movies (Casablanca, Wizard of Oz, etc.) or regular television shows, you would need a third screen to avoid the need for masking these. Of course there have been some other obscure aspect ratios used over the years, but some minimal zooming can usually take care of those as well. Here's a nice source for the diffferent aspect ratios used over the history of film making, and some of the movies that correspond to them. http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sipester* /forum/post/14984214
> 
> 
> ...does Seymour have any plans for a masking system...



Not in the ~3 month timeframe, however I am getting increased motor control options and capabilities. Granted the Somfy can be programmed for one intermediate stop, but I want a discrete motor control board for more advanced options at lower prices. Once those capabilities are gained, we'll see where retractable masking systems are.


The other nearer term project is an improved screen weave. Details won't be available until around mid-December.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/14987126
> 
> 
> My room is pretty dark, so that probably helps.



Definitely. I've been in a bat-cave HT with a JVC RS2 and on a white Stewart Studiotek 130 you couldn't tell the difference between the black bars and the frame masking. That said, rare enough is the bat cave that masking does help if it can be done at a good value...


We can reverse-roll screens to minimize the focal length difference in two screens, but I'm only aware of folks doing reverse rolling for installation reasons.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## scottyb

Working a screen.

How far apart(aprox) should the staples be when stapling to the frame?


Thanks


----------



## chriscmore

Every 3-5" should be fine. Don't use a really powerful stapler, like an air-powered or some electrics, as they'll drive the staples in too deeply. This could cause waves and be much more difficult to re-position any areas you need to.


I presume you're doing the 15 degree tilt, so tension along the biased thread lines. The new weave won't need the tilt, so when it's available it'll be easier to tension and there will be much less waste.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## oman321

Will the new weave be available in both width's 63" & 98" and will you still be selling the fabric for DIY'ers?


----------



## Doug G

Anyone in the Boston area with a model H090 or F090 still have their box? I need to borrow one and would be happy to return it when finished. PM me if you can help.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oman321* /forum/post/15040215
> 
> 
> Will the new weave be available in both width's 63" & 98" and will you still be selling the fabric for DIY'ers?



Hey Oman -


The new Center Stage XD will be available only in the 63" at first and will be available for DIY'ers. While only having the narrower size seems like a limitation, the XD will eliminate the need for the 15 degree tilted cut to avoid moire. Not having this waste will allow the full 63" to be available for height, so 16:9 screens can be


----------



## Mooneyass

Hey Guys,


Just thought I'd post my experience with Seymour AV Product and service.


First, I built my own frame for the screen. Very nice product to work with, very easy to get a taught screen.


The resulting sound quality through it is very good, my Onkyo 705/Audessy/Mackie HR824 setup sounds rediculous. The Audessy had no problems at all.


The picture is nice and bright with stellar off axis viewing as one would expect from a 1.16 gain material. My problem is that I have a terrible moire effect. The material was cut by me on a 15 degree bias but its still interacting with my PJ (BenQ W5000).


So, I gave Chris at Seymour a call and he is very interested to find out what angle it goes away at, if any. Regardless, he is willing to ship me out a new peice of fabric at no cost as soon as I get him the info.


I have to say I've never had better service, especially in this industry, as I've gotten from Chris at Seymour.


Cheers,


Wes


----------



## vernonl

I don't mean to threadcrap, but does someone here have Chris Seymour's phone number to PM to me? I was expecting my order from them to ship this past Monday and have had no responses to any of my e-mails.


I realise Chris is a busy guy, but I'd hope I could at least be notified of a delay. Sorry that this is my first post on this forum. In all other respects, Chris has been very informative and helpful so far.


----------



## Mooneyass

Its on the front page of their website: 515 450 5694


----------



## Mooneyass

I almost forgot, Welcome to the Forum!


----------



## Milt99

Hey Chris.

I've been away for awhile and caught up on your thread.

I _really_ appreciate the follow-up on your black AT material vs. GOM 701 posted in September.

I will definitely be ordering some soon.

I'm also looking at increasing my screen size and you will be the first one I contact for the material.

Keep up the excellent work and introducing HT people to affordable AT screens.

IMO, once you have one, there's no going back.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vernonl* /forum/post/15070028
> 
> 
> I don't mean to threadcrap, but does someone here have Chris Seymour's phone number to PM to me? I was expecting my order from them to ship this past Monday and have had no responses to any of my e-mails.
> 
> 
> I realise Chris is a busy guy, but I'd hope I could at least be notified of a delay. Sorry that this is my first post on this forum. In all other respects, Chris has been very informative and helpful so far.



And I was all proud that I'm caught up on emails... Seriously, I don't show any unresponded-to emails. Knowing the options and how we stay in touch, to review for the other folks:


1) Phone number is on the footer of every web page. Sometimes answered by Jenna or Jon instead of me. If no one is handy, the voice mail is an option and also gives out my cell (515 708 5279). Someone is almost always around, so if you NEED to have a projector discussion at 9pm on a Sunday, it is possible.

2) Direct-to-inbox message box on the home page.

3) Email, simply "[email protected]"

4) PM here

5a) When an order ships, you get the tracking number notification through Google checkout, or alternatively I'll email it to you.

5b) You are also copied with email from FedEx's system, for shipment, exception (e.g. held up in customs), and delivery.

5c) You can of course track the number daily and watch it's progress to your place.


Anyway, I did get the notification that your screen was delivered. Everything should go smoothly, but if you have any questions or issues, let us know.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## airliner

@ Mooneyass

..........The picture is nice and bright with stellar off axis viewing as one would expect from a 1.16 gain material. My problem is that I have a terrible moire effect. The material was cut by me on a 15 degree bias but its still interacting with my PJ (BenQ W5000)........


I bought some Center Stage from Chris few months ago, but still waiting to use it. I own a Benq 5000, do you conferm it has moire problems also if tilted? That would be a problem. Marco


----------



## vernonl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/15078241
> 
> 
> And I was all proud that I'm caught up on emails... Seriously, I don't show any unresponded-to emails. Knowing the options and how we stay in touch, to review for the other folks:
> 
> 
> 1) Phone number is on the footer of every web page. Sometimes answered by Jenna or Jon instead of me. If no one is handy, the voice mail is an option and also gives out my cell (515 708 5279). Someone is almost always around, so if you NEED to have a projector discussion at 9pm on a Sunday, it is possible.
> 
> 2) Direct-to-inbox message box on the home page.
> 
> 3) Email, simply "[email protected]"
> 
> 4) PM here
> 
> 5a) When an order ships, you get the tracking number notification through Google checkout, or alternatively I'll email it to you.
> 
> 5b) You are also copied with email from FedEx's system, for shipment, exception (e.g. held up in customs), and delivery.
> 
> 5c) You can of course track the number daily and watch it's progress to your place.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I did get the notification that your screen was delivered. Everything should go smoothly, but if you have any questions or issues, let us know.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



No problem Chris,


I didn't get any shipping notifications but I did get delivery of the screen on Friday night. I started to panic when I didn't get responses to my e-mails for a week but like I said, I realise you're busy and I got concerned when I never got shipping notifications, which I still haven't gotten. I'd be happy to complain to google checkout about it if you think it'll make a difference.


I looked at the website but never saw a number because the res on my screen is so high the text at the bottom isn't even visible to me, so I take responsibility for that. It's not your fault I crank my monitor so high.


On to the screen....


I got it Friday night and got it up yesteday.


It's a beautiful piece of equipment, I must say. Case has a bit of a ding on it where the mounting bar goes it so it's really tight to get the bar on, but I did it. The package wasn't damaged so I'm assuming it happened in the factory. To me that's minor and will just make taking the screen on and off a little more difficult, but I don't plan on doing that often anyway.


On my Epson 1080 UB sitting 16ft back, the brightness of this screen is perfect in my less than perfect environment. It's a room with beige walls, beige carpets and a white ceiling for now but even on Theatre Black I can have pots on without a loss in picture quality. Loss of light through the back with the black backing is less than I thought it would be too.


There's one problem I'm having which I can't figure out and that's what looks like a slight moire issue. It's mostly visible on bright scenes and I find when I zoom the projector in or out about 20% it disappears so I'm assuming it's got to do with pixel size in relation to the holes in the screen.


Anyone have any advice on rectifying this or am I just lucky enough that the size I chose is perfect for this behaviour?


EDIT: Just an FYI for Canadians. If this did ship on Monday, which I'm sure it did, then it took 5 business days to get to Canada. Not too shabby.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vernonl* /forum/post/15082781
> 
> 
> ...There's one problem I'm having which I can't figure out and that's what looks like a slight moire issue. It's mostly visible on bright scenes and I find when I zoom the projector in or out about 20% it disappears so I'm assuming it's got to do with pixel size in relation to the holes in the screen.
> 
> 
> Anyone have any advice on rectifying this or am I just lucky enough that the size I chose is perfect for this behaviour?



Vernon, you are probably just "lucky", but projectors with really sharp pixel edges, like on your 1080UB, are more likely to have some slight moire' issues with screens like this. The Sony SXRD's and the Panasonic "smoothscreen" projectors are known to have zero to very little moire' issues with the SeymourAV/SMX screens. If it's not bad I would just live with it, or you could to to slightly de-focus and it will help some too.


----------



## vernonl

Thanks mlbrand. And to think the choice I was making was between the AE-2000 and the 1080 UB. AAAAGH. I'll give your suggestions a try. It makes sense that softening the image would help.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vernonl* /forum/post/15083608
> 
> 
> Thanks mlbrand. And to think the choice I was making was between the AE-2000 and the 1080 UB. AAAAGH. I'll give your suggestions a try. It makes sense that softening the image would help.



Yeah, some projectors and screens do work better together than others. If de-focusing a little doesn't get it done, you might consider advertising a trade offer in the AVS classifieds for a Panasonic 2000, or a Sony VW40, VW60, or HW10. Or of course you could just sell it and buy one of the others. There is a used Panny 2000 on the AVS forum right now for $1,550. Your Epson is a great projector on the right screen, so it should be attractive to many.


----------



## Mooneyass




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airliner* /forum/post/15081713
> 
> 
> @ Mooneyass
> 
> ..........The picture is nice and bright with stellar off axis viewing as one would expect from a 1.16 gain material. My problem is that I have a terrible moire effect. The material was cut by me on a 15 degree bias but its still interacting with my PJ (BenQ W5000)........
> 
> 
> I bought some Center Stage from Chris few months ago, but still waiting to use it. I own a Benq 5000, do you conferm it has moire problems also if tilted? That would be a problem. Marco



Hey Marco,


I'm going to change the tilt angle to see if I can get rid of it. Regardless, I'll need a new screen. I'll email Chris as well as post beck here as to the tilt that is required to resolve. I'm planning to hold off until the new material comes in and go with that.


Wes


----------



## Doug G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vernonl* /forum/post/15082781
> 
> 
> There's one problem I'm having which I can't figure out and that's what looks like a slight moire issue. It's mostly visible on bright scenes and I find when I zoom the projector in or out about 20% it disappears so I'm assuming it's got to do with pixel size in relation to the holes in the screen.



I had another AVS user send me a scrap piece of SW4500 (the material used in the CenterStage screens) when I was thinking of making a DIY screen to go with an Epson 1080UB. At a throw of about 13' and a size of 106" I found I needed to rotate the material to roughly 35-40 degrees to eliminate any moire. I never measured it exactly and am going on memory here so that may not be exact, but it was definitely significantly more than 15 degrees. The pixels on an LCD PJ like the 1080UB are fairly far apart so there will be a lot more interaction with a material like SW4500.


It turned out to be a non-issue for me since I ended up going with a JVC RS1x (couldn't get a "good" 1080UB after 4 tries) and the D-ILA panels have very close pixel spacing to the point where no rotation of the material is even required. I gave the material sample to a friend with an RS1 so he could check it out and confirmed no moire issues which has been my experience as well.


Re: the ceiling bar, yeah it can be difficult to get the case on. Its a pretty snug fit and if you're ceiling isn't perfectly flat (most aren't) you need to keep the bar from warping. I had to slightly loosen one or two screws to make the bar as flat as possible and it still took my wife and I several tries to get the screen mounted on it. When you're working that close to the ceiling it can be really difficult to get the end-on view you need to see if its properly seated, unless you have a really small head!


----------



## vernonl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Doug G* /forum/post/15087075
> 
> 
> I had another AVS user send me a scrap piece of SW4500 (the material used in the CenterStage screens) when I was thinking of making a DIY screen to go with an Epson 1080UB. At a throw of about 13' and a size of 106" I found I needed to rotate the material to roughly 35-40 degrees to eliminate any moire. I never measured it exactly and am going on memory here so that may not be exact, but it was definitely significantly more than 15 degrees. The pixels on an LCD PJ like the 1080UB are fairly far apart so there will be a lot more interaction with a material like SW4500.
> 
> 
> It turned out to be a non-issue for me since I ended up going with a JVC RS1x (couldn't get a "good" 1080UB after 4 tries) and the D-ILA panels have very close pixel spacing to the point where no rotation of the material is even required. I gave the material sample to a friend with an RS1 so he could check it out and confirmed no moire issues which has been my experience as well.
> 
> 
> Re: the ceiling bar, yeah it can be difficult to get the case on. Its a pretty snug fit and if you're ceiling isn't perfectly flat (most aren't) you need to keep the bar from warping. I had to slightly loosen one or two screws to make the bar as flat as possible and it still took my wife and I several tries to get the screen mounted on it. When you're working that close to the ceiling it can be really difficult to get the end-on view you need to see if its properly seated, unless you have a really small head!



Thanks guys,


I'll consider another PJ as a last option but it's good to know some will swap them out.


The problem is, I bought a motorized one from Seymour so changing the angle isn't an option. I'm hoping Chris will have some time to key in on this too. I left him a VM on the weekend so I'm sure I'll hear back soon.


I didn't have the option of making one myself b/c I absolutely needed a motorized screen and I'm not adept enough to do that on my own. Any other options to consider?


Thanks again to everyone for the info. It's nice to learn new things in a welcoming forum.


----------



## Doug G

vernonl - two options to consider.


Maybe the forthcoming XD material Chris mentions above would be a solution?


Also, with the new JVC RS10/20's about to hit, there will be lots of gently used RS1s around. You could probably find one close to the MSRP of the Home 1080UB. After having seen both, I'm a firm believer that my bad experience trying to get a Home 1080UB was fate knowing I'd be much happier with an RS1x, which I am! Its a tad louder (fan) but in every other respect it kicks the UBs behind.


----------



## vernonl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Doug G* /forum/post/15089610
> 
> 
> vernonl - two options to consider.
> 
> 
> Maybe the forthcoming XD material Chris mentions above would be a solution?
> 
> 
> Also, with the new JVC RS10/20's about to hit, there will be lots of gently used RS1s around. You could probably find one close to the MSRP of the Home 1080UB. After having seen both, I'm a firm believer that my bad experience trying to get a Home 1080UB was fate knowing I'd be much happier with an RS1x, which I am! Its a tad louder (fan) but in every other respect it kicks the UBs behind.



Thanks Doug. If Chris brings them out in a motorized form in 103" I could use his upgrade policy for it but I doubt that'll happen with in that timeframe. I could be wrong. For the time being I have to see about dealing with this now or it's going to drive me nuts! i bought the screen primarily b/c this wasn't supposed to happen much. Just my luck eh?










I'm still reserving judgment until I hear from Chris. He seems to have a good idea on how various PJs react to his screens.


----------



## vernonl

Just an update for anyone interested. I tried to slightly defocus the PJ and it seemed to help a bit. I can understand why that is, but now that I know how crisp the image could look I'm having a hard time being satisfied with it how it is with still images like my Xbox Dashboard.


That said, the difference when playing games seems to be negligible. I haven't had time to drop in a BR to see if I notice the difference. I'm sitting about 10ft back and my new furniture will put me 11ft back so maybe at those distances I won't notice it much.


Thanks again for the input guys.


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Vernon -


I know there are several other 1080UB folks out there without issues, but perhaps you've hit a size / projector combo that has problems. There are a few cases of "lucky" combinations like this, which is why we send out free samples to confirm everything will work before hand. But since you often can't fully know how everything will look for you until you get YOUR installation fired up, we make it right, hence our guarantee.


I'd first confirm whether or not the screen weave is artifacting by projecting on a sheet of paper. I just had a 2009 model major projector moiré all over the place, and I proved it wasn't our screen when it did the same thing on a sheet of paper. It was a prototype and likely suffered from banding and/or panel alignment issues.


I'd then recommend to live with it for a couple weeks, get some experience with the image (e.g. is the image size perfect?), and find out by tilting the projector if a more severe angle improves what you're seeing; we can do any angle. We've had some custom fixed frame installs with small screens under perhaps 80" wide, where a more severe angle solved the problem.


While I think the current material is the best balance of audio and video performance for a home theater screen, limitations and isolated cases have created the wish list for a better material. Center Stage XD is still a few weeks away, but will be used in all our retractables except the H110-H115, as well as available for DIY.


One way to reduce the sensitivity to moiré is to increase the hole density. Here's some specs on how the new XD material compares in this respect:


Perfed vinyl: ~49 holes / sq.in.

Microperfed vinyl: ~200 holes / sq.in.

Woven 2x2 pattern (e.g. Center Stage and others are nearly identical): ~500 holes / sq.in.

Center Stage XD: 1,500+ holes / sq.in.


I'll get more comprehensive with the specs and benefits soon, but the applications centered in the cross hairs are:

- Those rare cases where a projector/size combo doesn't look perfect

- Seats are pushing the minimum seating distance, say in the 8-10' range

- Need to handle higher pixel counts (4k) on smaller screens

- Less costly, easier, DIY with higher performance


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## scottyb

Chris,

Do you have a rough ETA?


Thanks,

Scott


----------



## chriscmore

Scotty -


As of this morning, a 12/12 ship date from the weavers with an ETA "around Christmas." Scrooge here will make sure no vacations are planned...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## vernonl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/15102411
> 
> 
> Hi Vernon -
> 
> 
> I know there are several other 1080UB folks out there without issues, but perhaps you've hit a size / projector combo that has problems. There are a few cases of "lucky" combinations like this, which is why we send out free samples to confirm everything will work before hand. But since you often can't fully know how everything will look for you until you get YOUR installation fired up, we make it right, hence our guarantee.
> 
> 
> I'd first confirm whether or not the screen weave is artifacting by projecting on a sheet of paper. I just had a 2009 model major projector moiré all over the place, and I proved it wasn't our screen when it did the same thing on a sheet of paper. It was a prototype and likely suffered from banding and/or panel alignment issues.
> 
> 
> I'd then recommend to live with it for a couple weeks, get some experience with the image (e.g. is the image size perfect?), and find out by tilting the projector if a more severe angle improves what you're seeing; we can do any angle. We've had some custom fixed frame installs with small screens under perhaps 80" wide, where a more severe angle solved the problem.
> 
> 
> While I think the current material is the best balance of audio and video performance for a home theater screen, limitations and isolated cases have created the wish list for a better material. Center Stage XD is still a few weeks away, but will be used in all our retractables except the H110-H115, as well as available for DIY.
> 
> 
> One way to reduce the sensitivity to moiré is to increase the hole density. Here's some specs on how the new XD material compares in this respect:
> 
> 
> Perfed vinyl: ~49 holes / sq.in.
> 
> Microperfed vinyl: ~200 holes / sq.in.
> 
> Woven 2x2 pattern (e.g. Center Stage and others are nearly identical): ~500 holes / sq.in.
> 
> Center Stage XD: 1,500+ holes / sq.in.
> 
> 
> I'll get more comprehensive with the specs and benefits soon, but the applications centered in the cross hairs are:
> 
> - Those rare cases where a projector/size combo doesn't look perfect
> 
> - Seats are pushing the minimum seating distance, say in the 8-10' range
> 
> - Need to handle higher pixel counts (4k) on smaller screens
> 
> - Less costly, easier, DIY with higher performance
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Great suggestions Chris. I'll definitely give these a try. I'm definitely one for living with something for a bit to make sure I'm not being overly fussy.


I'll keep you posted on the tilt and paper check to make sure it's not the PJ as well.


Cheers


----------



## vernonl

Hi guys, me again.


I've now placed a piece of paper by the screen and can definitely see the pixel structure clearly on the paper but when moved and I look at the screen there's definitely a very strong moire effect.


I tried tilting the projector upwards of 45 degress to increase the relative angle to 60 degrees to no avail. The moire wasn't reduced enough in any way to be a noticable reduction.


I'm sitting 10' from the screen so my guess is that with this PJ I'm just pushing this screen to its limits and unfortunately the more I live with it, the more I'm realising this isn't working for me and sitting further back isn't an option as I can't sit inside the wall










Chris, please let me know if we should have this discussion through PM or e-mail as I certainly don't want to monopolise this thread unless folks here are still interested in hearing my issues.


I bought the H90 so it sounds like the XD material might be a good bet for me. How exactly will it change audio performance/quality?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vernonl* /forum/post/15112104
> 
> 
> I bought the H90 so it sounds like the XD material might be a good bet for me. How exactly will it change audio performance/quality?



The new XD material was designed to not only improve application video sensitivities (higher pixel densities, closer seating), but also to improve its transparency to sound. With the exception of the excellent-sounding Screen Research material (currently the best audio of all AT materials), the other "AT" screens just don't give enough priority to audio in my opinion. The perfed vinyls are just miserable in all respects and give AT fabrics a bad name for residential use. The microperfed vinyls at least enable some high gain and reference grade video options, but require electronic EQ and still obliterate the top octave. The 2x2 woven fabrics range from perfectly good for a well-balanced screen material (I'd submit our Center Stage...) to one major-company's near-zero openness factor creating a 6dB suckout in the lower treble and upper midrange. Unacceptable practice for sure.


The new XD material improves on our audio specs by +0.5dB average from 2kHz to 20kHz. Whether or not this quite reaches best-in-class is yet to be concluded, but when the video aspects are also considered (+30% brighter than SR, 99% of reference ANSI contrast vs. 92-94%), Center Stage XD should serve as a new benchmark of AT screen performance.


You've done what you can on your end. When the XD material arrives I'll send you a test piece and we can prove out what the next step should be. We should take this to PM to keep the clutter down, unless you or I see bits that the other folks could find interesting.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## bmwracer3

Why do I keep reading this thread and wanting to upgrade my 4-month-old screen? ;-)


----------



## okron




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/15102411
> 
> 
> Here's some specs on how the new XD material compares in this respect:
> 
> 
> Perfed vinyl: ~49 holes / sq.in.
> 
> Microperfed vinyl: ~200 holes / sq.in.
> 
> Woven 2x2 pattern (e.g. Center Stage and others are nearly identical): ~500 holes / sq.in.
> 
> Center Stage XD: 1,500+ holes / sq.in.
> 
> 
> I'll get more comprehensive with the specs and benefits soon, but the applications centered in the cross hairs are:
> 
> - Those rare cases where a projector/size combo doesn't look perfect
> 
> - Seats are pushing the minimum seating distance, say in the 8-10' range
> 
> - Need to handle higher pixel counts (4k) on smaller screens
> 
> - Less costly, easier, DIY with higher performance
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Chris....do you have the additional specs and benefits of the new screen material yet? Are you still looking at an ETA around Christmas?


Can you tell I'm a little anxious










Ron


----------



## skid_68

Im curious about the cost. I see you have a sale on the original center stage material. Im going for a Panny 3000, so Im wondering if I should just pick up the original materail at the sale price without having to rotate it.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *skid_68* /forum/post/15306576
> 
> 
> Im curious about the cost. I see you have a sale on the original center stage material. Im going for a Panny 3000, so Im wondering if I should just pick up the original materail at the sale price without having to rotate it.



Hi Skid -


Can't discuss cost here, but the new XD material will be similar for the near future. Panasonic 1080p projectors almost never benefit from any tilting, so they are uniquely able to get by with little to no scrap. They just don't have discernible pixel structure enough to artifact. If you're doing more video than computer text, they are what I prefer to watch. I enjoy my 2000u much more than my very expensive Marantz VP-11s1.


Regarding additional specs and information, we are currently sending out XD samples and putting together the info as quickly as we can, although customer needs come first. So contact us for samples if you need.


Generally speaking what I can say is that it looks better and sounds better, but isn't reducing moire sensitivity enough. If you have a Panasonic 1080p or wide 2.35 screen (>120" wide), then you don't really have to worry and the 63" material will work great. Unfortunately we don't have it in the larger size to accommodate tilting yet. Getting the 98" XD batch looks to be delayed for a few months for another screen project that needs attention, but hopefully I can squeeze that in sooner.


The retractables will continue using the standard Center Stage screen, so we can continue doing the 15 tilt using the 98" wide material.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Zip3kx07

Thanks for the update, and the replay to my PM Chris.











Does the new XD material have the same gain as the previous Center Stage material?


----------



## kendo70433

Since Seymour doesn't yet offer a ceiling trim kit, has anyone mounted one in-ceiling? Do you have details or pictures?


Many thanks. I will have to develop an in-ceiling installation to produce an acceptable Acceptance Factor...


----------



## tony123

Chris, will the XD material be available in 98" width within the next 6 months? My application calls for larger than 63" height, and just curious how long I may be waiting. Sorry if posted already....I read many pages and didn't see it.


----------



## okron




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tony123* /forum/post/15319759
> 
> 
> Chris, will the XD material be available in 98" width within the next 6 months? My application calls for larger than 63" height, and just curious how long I may be waiting. Sorry if posted already....I read many pages and didn't see it.



I emailed Chris directly with a similar question and his response was a possible spring (April?) arrival of the 98" XD material.


----------



## tony123

Thanks. I'll wait for sure.


----------



## mcharkowski

I'm disappointed to hear that the XD material doesn't resolve the moire issue (enough). I have a Mitsubishi HC4900 and I found the performance on the sample of standard material to be on the edge of acceptable, even with the 15 degree tilt. Do you feel that the XD will be good enough once the 15 degree tilt is an option?


----------



## Zip3kx07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mcharkowski* /forum/post/15328395
> 
> 
> I'm disappointed to hear that the XD material doesn't resolve the moire issue (enough). I have a Mitsubishi HC4900 and I found the performance on the sample of standard material to be on the edge of acceptable, even with the 15 degree tilt. Do you feel that the XD will be good enough once the 15 degree tilt is an option?



Order up a sample of XD and give it a try, if the regular CS was borderline acceptable to you the XD should be an improvement . But trying it for yourself would be the only way to know for sure.


----------



## TBrooke

I thought I'd put up a few comments since I am probably one of the first to get the Center Stage XD. My home theater is somewhat of a kludge but I would like to re-emphasise what has been said before in that Chris was extremely helpful in getting me set up. I just ordered material which is why I got it so quickly. I am going from Dazian and the change is amazing. I am using an ancient Epson powerlite 720c and when I recently got a blu ray player the Epson with the Dazian was almost unwatchable. With Center Stage I still don't have much detail in dark scenes (the Epson only has a 400:1 contrast ratio) but in most situations the picture is fantastic. I have no moire and acoustic transparency is great.


The fabric is heavier than I expected and it has a pretty strong vinyl smell. My screen is about 110 wide and I have it fastened with velcro on each side. As Chris warned me I am getting some sagging in the middle so I am trying to figure out away to get some tension across the top.


So far I'm a happy camper


Tom


----------



## jclem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/15315952
> 
> 
> Since Seymour doesn't yet offer a ceiling trim kit, has anyone mounted one in-ceiling? Do you have details or pictures?
> 
> 
> Many thanks. I will have to develop an in-ceiling installation to produce an acceptable Acceptance Factor...



Kendo, I don't have one yet, but I do have a plan to handle the situation and would be glad to share with you. I have a suspended ceiling and the case (or no-case since it isn't necessary) will be above the ceiling in the joist bay. Let me know and I can go into detail.


----------



## JimmytheSaint




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/15315952
> 
> 
> Since Seymour doesn't yet offer a ceiling trim kit, has anyone mounted one in-ceiling? Do you have details or pictures?
> 
> 
> Many thanks. I will have to develop an in-ceiling installation to produce an acceptable Acceptance Factor...



My Center Stage screen is installed into the ceiling. Installation is pretty simple, as long as the ceiling is open and prewired to attach the power to the Center Stage. Depending on how high your ceiling is, make sure to get adequate screen drop/material from Chris. I have a particularly 'special' install, which required Chris to pull out the stops and come up with a solution......... which he promptly did! All I can say is that I highly recommend the Center Stage screen and Chris at Seymour!









Unfortunately, I took no work in progress pictures, but I will post some pics over Xmas if you'd like


----------



## Doug G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mcharkowski* /forum/post/15328395
> 
> 
> I'm disappointed to hear that the XD material doesn't resolve the moire issue (enough). I have a Mitsubishi HC4900 and I found the performance on the sample of standard material to be on the edge of acceptable, even with the 15 degree tilt. Do you feel that the XD will be good enough once the 15 degree tilt is an option?



I received a sample of the standard material from a fellow AVSer before I decided to forgo the DIY and just get a CenterStage retractable from Chris. At the time I was QC'ing it with an Epson 1080UB and found that the required tilt to eliminate all moire was closer to 30-35 degrees. I never measured, this was just eying it. Inspecting the pixel structure up close it was very evident how much space between pixels there was which I believe made the moire problem worse. In the end I couldn't get an acceptable 1080UB and decided on an RS1x and with its much more tightly spaced pixels I don't really require any tilt at all. That said, I'm still planning to wait until some more reports come in about the performance of the XD material before deciding to upgrade from the std material.


I think the bottom line is that the pixel structure of the projector (and also distance/size) is the primary factor in moire and I applaud Chris for being so proactive to send out samples and help people with this issue!


BTW, I would love to have been able to do an "in-ceiling" installation but alas my ceiling joists run perpendicular to the screen (although this did make exact distance placement a non-issue!)


----------



## vernonl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Doug G* /forum/post/15336138
> 
> 
> I received a sample of the standard material from a fellow AVSer before I decided to forgo the DIY and just get a CenterStage retractable from Chris. At the time I was QC'ing it with an Epson 1080UB and found that the required tilt to eliminate all moire was closer to 30-35 degrees. I never measured, this was just eying it. Inspecting the pixel structure up close it was very evident how much space between pixels there was which I believe made the moire problem worse. In the end I couldn't get an acceptable 1080UB and decided on an RS1x and with its much more tightly spaced pixels I don't really require any tilt at all. That said, I'm still planning to wait until some more reports come in about the performance of the XD material before deciding to upgrade from the std material.
> 
> 
> I think the bottom line is that the pixel structure of the projector (and also distance/size) is the primary factor in moire and I applaud Chris for being so proactive to send out samples and help people with this issue!



I can corroborate that as this weekend I finally managed to ceiling mount my 1080 UB and was able to tilt it what looked like an angle of anwhere between 15 to 30 degrees clockwise when looking towards the screen and the moire disappeared.


Chris has been great about moving forward in rectifying this by the way. We're still talking about whether I should wait for the XD or whether I can just get the new cut of the same.


I'm also trying to determine whether Chris measures the 15 degree angle from the horizontal or vertical so that I can let fellow 1080 UB owners know whether to get an effective 0 degree or 45 degree cut to avoid the issues I'm having with moire.


That's on my 103" diagonal 16:9 for anyone interested.


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jclem* /forum/post/15334297
> 
> 
> Kendo, I don't have one yet, but I do have a plan to handle the situation and would be glad to share with you. I have a suspended ceiling and the case (or no-case since it isn't necessary) will be above the ceiling in the joist bay. Let me know and I can go into detail.



jclem, Please go into as much detail as you want







I am in the learning/designing phase and can use all the input I can get. One thing I wonder about is, with the no-case option, do you have any worries about dust or other crud from the joist bay? Did you make a dust shield of any kind to go over the screen? And how did you handle the slot the screen passes through the ceiling?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimmytheSaint* /forum/post/15335216
> 
> 
> My Center Stage screen is installed into the ceiling. Installation is pretty simple, as long as the ceiling is open and prewired to attach the power to the Center Stage. Depending on how high your ceiling is, make sure to get adequate screen drop/material from Chris. I have a particularly 'special' install, which required Chris to pull out the stops and come up with a solution......... which he promptly did! All I can say is that I highly recommend the Center Stage screen and Chris at Seymour!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I took no work in progress pictures, but I will post some pics over Xmas if you'd like



JtS, I have been emailing Chris about options. And I agree, he is great to work with. I will need about 30" of drop, so it's good to know I can get it. I hadn't brought that up with Chris yet. As I mentioned to jclem, I am interested in how you trimmed the ceiling slot. And if you have access to the ceiling space, how you mounted the screen. Did you go caseless, too? What are you doing for screen control? Have you found a way to tie it into a universal remote?


Thanks to you both for replying. It is good to have help and ideas from fellow HT builders.


----------



## edan

Maybe this is a _really_ dumb question. To ceiling mount above my fireplace, I too need about 30" of drop to get the screen in the right vicinity. During my last WAF check, she indicated (in general terms) that it would be fine for the L and R speakers to be outside the screen, but they all had to be "close to the ceiling."


That puts the speaker either behind the projector case (heh), but assuming she lets me put it lower, it's behind the "drop" material. I read through all the pages of this thread before it occurred to me that this conversation is about the _screen_ material, not the _drop_ material. I've done a little searching and it seems the drop fabric is not generally specified.


The top of the hearth is at about 63" high, and with our couch seating putting our eyes at about 37", I think it would be pushing it (but maybe OK) to put the actual screen high enough to cover the speaker if I mount the speaker just above the hearth. (We're sitting roughly 11.5 feet back so I was thinking 85" wide[1]) Putting the speaker (a roughly 7" tall OMNISAT Micro) on the hearth doesn't bother me, and hopefully I can convince my project manager that it can go there if I say it HAS too










But that's my potentially really stupid question? What's the acoustic property of the Center Stage screens' drop material? Is it really bad, just like every other screen I might buy? Is it really good? It doesn't seem like everyone other one will be. Should I not even bother asking because I paid less for all 6 of my speakers than some people pay for one?










Never mind that this is my first proj and the last page of this thread is getting me worried about my delayed Epson HC6500...


Thanks for listening










[1] I was thinking Cinemascope but since the Epson 6500UB can't do that without a much of extra cost, maybe I will just go 1.78 ... Hopefully I will not talk myself into a slightly dimmer and less flexible (but otherwise probably excellent) Panny AX-3000 now because of its psuedo anamorphic feature... DOH!)


----------



## TBrooke

I also need to mount a screen fairly high up and could use about a 30 or 36 inch drop so keep me posted. I have some of the Centerstage XD fabric and I love it but I think I'm going to go to a roll up at some point in the future


Tom


----------



## fteixeira




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edan* /forum/post/15347954
> 
> 
> What's the acoustic property of the Center Stage screens' drop material?



Great question from edan. I have a similar situation with a fireplace hearth and I am seriously looking at a drop-down screen. The center channel will have to about 6.5 to 7.0 feet high. My layout will have sound transmission through the drop material.


Chris... any info?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zip3kx07* /forum/post/15308784
> 
> 
> Does the new XD material have the same gain as the previous Center Stage material?



The new XD material is barely higher gain. I'll be getting a final spec out soon.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edan* /forum/post/15347954
> 
> 
> But that's my potentially really stupid question? What's the acoustic property of the Center Stage screens' drop material? Is it really bad, just like every other screen I might buy? Is it really good?



As standard, the header material is not acoustically transparent much at all. It's purpose is to be thick and support the screen as rigidly as it's able to.


We have done AT windows in the header material - maybe JimmyTheSaint was one? If we know the dimensions you need, we cut a hole in the header material and stitch in the black backing AT material. It works quite well.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## oman321




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TBrooke* /forum/post/15334080
> 
> 
> The fabric is heavier than I expected and it has a pretty strong vinyl smell. My screen is about 110 wide and I have it fastened with velcro on each side. As Chris warned me I am getting some sagging in the middle so I am trying to figure out away to get some tension across the top.
> 
> 
> So far I'm a happy camper
> 
> 
> Tom



TBrooke, I don't know if you resolved your issue yet? But, you can take a look at how I made my screen and see if you can use the spline method that I used. You may be able to incorporate it for the top and I would also do the bottom to even out the tension. Not sure how you have your material mounted but if it's on studs or frame you should be able to apply this method for a very minimal cost, probably about 10 bucks or so.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1073708 


Also the strong vynil smell does dissipate in a couple of days try to keep the door to your room open.


----------



## TBrooke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oman321* /forum/post/15356109
> 
> 
> TBrooke, I don't know if you resolved your issue yet? But, you can take a look at how I made my screen and see if you can use the spline method that I used. You may be able to incorporate it for the top and I would also do the bottom to even out the tension. Not sure how you have your material mounted but if it's on studs or frame you should be able to apply this method for a very minimal cost, probably about 10 bucks or so.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1073708
> 
> 
> Also the strong vynil smell does dissipate in a couple of days try to keep the door to your room open.



I looked at your thread great job. Do you feel the curverd screen was worth the trouble?


----------



## oman321

100% well worth the effort. Since I'm using a DIY prism based lens I had some pincushion that would have needed to be overscanned off the screen. With the curve it corrects the pincushion, and I am able to just about perfectly fit the image to the screen. Building the screen frame was fairly easy as long as your patient with a jigsaw.


----------



## donatelloa

I just ordered a seymour 97" screen. I am psyched. I did my research and it seems like this is the best option for me with my situation. I needed a screen allowed my sound to go through it and the other screens that were acoustically transparent were either a) SUPER $$$ or B) did not get great reviews (dalite etc) The cost of the Seymour screens is CRAZY. Almost to good to be true, but I called Chris and talked with him and got the impression that he is a stand up guy and true to his word. First impression with me is huge and he made a good one. Talked with me on the phone for 15 minutes and was a great explainer. I am going to attach it to the ceiling and attach the plug to an extension cord hidden in the wall. I am getting an Epson 6100 for x-mas and will be throwing the image from approx 14 ft. Anyone think that is too close?


Anyone have one of these screens and want to send some feedback or tips I would appreciate it.


----------



## oman321

14' seems to be an appropiate distance. Definately a good choice on the product, you'll be able to enjoy for a long time to come. Merry Christmas.


----------



## Vcook

Updates on when the new material will be available for purchase? I'm jonesing to replace my dazian screen!!


----------



## vernonl

A word to the wise on getting an Epson. I don't know if the 6100 is anything like the 1080 UB in pixel structure, but you'd best get a sample from Chris once you've got your projector and make sure the 15 degree tilt works for you. I only discovered this forum after purchase and I wish I had done so before as it would've educated me a lot on the interactions between so called perf'ed screens and the pixel structure on projectors which produce moire.


The great thing about Chris is that he's more than open to ensuring you're happy with your purchase but it'll save both you and him a lot of trouble if you make sure you have the appropriate angle sorted out before you order.


I'd trust Chris though on his opinions and if he's familiar with 6100s being fine with a standard tilt then you're good to go and Merry Christmas!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *donatelloa* /forum/post/15360823
> 
> 
> I just ordered a seymour 97" screen. I am psyched. I did my research and it seems like this is the best option for me with my situation. I needed a screen allowed my sound to go through it and the other screens that were acoustically transparent were either a) SUPER $$$ or B) did not get great reviews (dalite etc) The cost of the Seymour screens is CRAZY. Almost to good to be true, but I called Chris and talked with him and got the impression that he is a stand up guy and true to his word. First impression with me is huge and he made a good one. Talked with me on the phone for 15 minutes and was a great explainer. I am going to attach it to the ceiling and attach the plug to an extension cord hidden in the wall. I am getting an Epson 6100 for x-mas and will be throwing the image from approx 14 ft. Anyone think that is too close?
> 
> 
> Anyone have one of these screens and want to send some feedback or tips I would appreciate it.


----------



## edan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/15356096
> 
> 
> As standard, the header material is not acoustically transparent much at all. It's purpose is to be thick and support the screen as rigidly as it's able to.
> 
> 
> We have done AT windows in the header material - maybe JimmyTheSaint was one? If we know the dimensions you need, we cut a hole in the header material and stitch in the black backing AT material. It works quite well.



Thanks Chris! Of course, in retrospect it seems a little silly to use an AT screen if you don't have speakers behind in the screen







But your offer to cut a hole in the header material and competitive pricing for electric screens might bring me back here anyway. I'm still waiting for my 6500UB so it will be a couple weeks before I figure out how much gain I really need. Then it sounds like I will need a sample to figure out how the pixel structure looks if no one else has first










Thanks again!


----------



## dfollis

I think I may be one of the first purchasers of the new material. It looks amazing. Now understand, I am moving from curtain black out material. I have seen no moire effects. I have a Panasonic PT-AX200U. I sit about 12' back and my screen is 100" x 56.25". The diagonal is 114.73" But it is much brighter and the colors are more accurate.


Chris shipped the screen to me very quickly and I could not be happier at this point. The only downside is my hardware. I'm desperately trying to decided on a sub $750 receiver and still not sure about Blue Ray player. It seems like every model has some other issue. I started to decide on Yamaha, then Onkyo, then Sony DA4400 refurb, but it appears those have HDMI issues.


Love HDMI, but hate all of the compatability crap. I am running a 25' Monoprice HDMI 1.3 Cable from a Motorola DCH3416 for my HD content. It is pretty awesome. I think I am going to wait for the Oppo Digital BDP-83 and then pick a receiver. I have an old Dolby Pro Logic Pioneer which is working for audio right now but it doesn't even have component!!! Time for an upgrade!


Oh, the most important feature, THE SOUND. Again what a difference. I did a test with my non-perf screen and it totally chopped the response of the inwall center that it covers as you would expect. The Center Stage Screen works great! If you close you eyes you can't even tell it is over the speaker.


----------



## Bulldogger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dfollis* /forum/post/15385748
> 
> 
> The Center Stage Screen works great! If you close you eyes you can't even tell it is over the speaker.



It also allows you to add acoustical treatments behind the screen which is a big plus.


----------



## bmwracer3

So I got my new XD sample in and taped it on to my existing 2.37 110" wide CenterStage screen. I built my existing screen, if that matters at all...


I also just bought a new projector...I went from a Optoma HD80 to a Mits HC6500.


About the existing screen first... I never had any moire problems with the HD80 (DLP), but once I put the 6500 (LCD) I did experience some. Not so much to be distracting, but like on Mac's grill in Cars I'd see it as he was driving down the highway. Probably the biggest distraction for me was that I could really see the pattern on the screen now, vs when I had the HD80. I'm not sure why that happened, and it was really only visible under certain conditions, usually a bright sky or something that was bright and didn't have much color variation. Somewhat disappointing, but the screen performance kinda took a hit when I switched PJs.


So last night I put the XD material up. I didn't notice much off hand. The moire was still pretty apparent on Mac's grill, although I haven't tried tilting it yet (my current screen has the tilt). Colors seemed a little brighter, but what really blew me away was 1) the visible pattern was gone and 2) white is WAY brighter. XD didn't seem to do anything to lower IRE's, but it certainly boosted the higher ones. That makes me think that ANSI contrast should improve, but then that's just my eyes, not some fancy measuring instruments.


Now I just have to figure out if I really want to build another screen (I'll curve this one). The improvement was there...but I'm still not sure.


----------



## Pajax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmwracer3* /forum/post/15403401
> 
> 
> So I got my new XD sample in and taped it on to my existing 2.37 110" wide CenterStage screen. I built my existing screen, if that matters at all...
> 
> 
> I also just bought a new projector...I went from a Optoma HD80 to a Mits HC6500.
> 
> 
> About the existing screen first... I never had any moire problems with the HD80 (DLP), but once I put the 6500 (LCD) I did experience some. Not so much to be distracting, but like on Mac's grill in Cars I'd see it as he was driving down the highway. Probably the biggest distraction for me was that I could really see the pattern on the screen now, vs when I had the HD80. I'm not sure why that happened, and it was really only visible under certain conditions, usually a bright sky or something that was bright and didn't have much color variation. Somewhat disappointing, but the screen performance kinda took a hit when I switched PJs.
> 
> 
> So last night I put the XD material up. I didn't notice much off hand. The moire was still pretty apparent on Mac's grill, although I haven't tried tilting it yet (my current screen has the tilt). Colors seemed a little brighter, but what really blew me away was 1) the visible pattern was gone and 2) white is WAY brighter. XD didn't seem to do anything to lower IRE's, but it certainly boosted the higher ones. That makes me think that ANSI contrast should improve, but then that's just my eyes, not some fancy measuring instruments.
> 
> 
> Now I just have to figure out if I really want to build another screen (I'll curve this one). The improvement was there...but I'm still not sure.



What do this Moire look like?


I also received a test of this XD material a couple weeks ago and i have Mitsubishi 5500 and i see some strange things but this disapers when i make the picture a little larger, and i also found out that a bit of black fabric behind really improves the coulors and the black


Thomas


----------



## oman321

It will look something like the picture on this link.
http://images.digitalcamerainfo.com/...moire_crop.jpg 


You can often see it on SD material if someone is wearing a checkered or striped suit jacket, shirt, or tie.


----------



## distoga

I finally got my screen hung after 3 months and it looks great. It's 68.3"x149" from 98" material which gives me a 156" 2.35:1 and 130" 16:9. The sound from behind it is great and video was great too until my PJ went out on the second movie I watched. I'm glad I checked in and heard about the 1080UB problems, I've been debating between the panny ae3000 and the epson 6100 or 6500 but I may wait to find out if the 6100 and 6500's have the same problem the 1080ub has. The 6100 would be the sweet spot with it's higher lumens, a german site is report 1700 lumens once calibrated.










Thanks again for the sale Chris, Will you be at CES?


----------



## TBrooke

I have the new XD material and so far I love it. The sound is great and it looks good with my 720P projector. My current setup involve using velcro to stretch the screen across two columns at the front of my entertainment center. As Chris predicted this is a bit of a kludge and I have some rippling of the fabric plus it is a pain to put up and down. My problem is I have limited width for a rollup and the widest screen I can use is the 95" because of the batten width at the bottom.


Does anyone with a roll up know if some of the batten can be shaved off?


The batten and border add about 6 inches of width on each side of the image. It would be great if I could take an inch off each side


Tom Brooke


----------



## vernonl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *distoga* /forum/post/15406921
> 
> 
> I finally got my screen hung after 3 months and it looks great. It's 68.3"x149" from 98" material which gives me a 156" 2.35:1 and 130" 16:9. The sound from behind it is great and video was great too until my PJ went out on the second movie I watched. I'm glad I checked in and heard about the 1080UB problems, I've been debating between the panny ae3000 and the epson 6100 or 6500 but I may wait to find out if the 6100 and 6500's have the same problem the 1080ub has. The 6100 would be the sweet spot with it's higher lumens, a german site is report 1700 lumens once calibrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again for the sale Chris, Will you be at CES?



So with the holidays, I've now had time to look into a good angle that works for the 1080 UB. So far, a 33 degree tilt seems to almost completely eradicate the moire. The pixels look basically like diamonds with the moire but they are still the size of pixels so from a seating distance of 10 ft it's completely unnoticable. I'd say for anyone looking to use the Epson's to look at a minimum 30 degree angle at this point.


Hope this helps the Epson crowd.


----------



## brassos

received my 120" today and just watched kung fu panda and iron man. Using mitsubishi hc6500. Projector is celing mounted 14'6" back.

No moire that i could see. Great color and detail. Sound was good with a bit of a bass thump due to my not turning down the front mounted sub. Will back off bass tomorrow and I bet it's perfect.

Screen went up easily even with the help of a 5'2" wife)

Thanks to all at Seymourav,

Scott "Brassos"

p.s. just noticed a couple of diagonal down light folds on either side near the bottom. Very light and only viewable on bright full screen shots. Will let the screen hang a couple of days and see how they go. I will probably call the company and ask how to adjust turnbuckles if that is needed. Still amazing picture.


----------



## davedelite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Doug G* /forum/post/15087075
> 
> 
> I had another AVS user send me a scrap piece of Center Stage (the material used in the CenterStage screens) when I was thinking of making a DIY screen to go with an Epson 1080UB. At a throw of about 13' and a size of 106" I found I needed to rotate the material to roughly 35-40 degrees to eliminate any moire. I never measured it exactly and am going on memory here so that may not be exact, but it was definitely significantly more than 15 degrees



I can confirm this is the case with the Epson Home Cinema 6500 UB also. I have a screen I made 2 years ago with Center Stage material and it is 16 degrees. I had not detected moire for the first week if using my pj...but today I started analyzing it per the pm of another forum member (thanks!) I found that I do, in fact, have moire detectable from within 9.5 to 10 feet max. I think it will be fine and I won't go with a different pj or change my screen since it is not detectable at my viewing distance of 12 - 13'. My screen is a 1.78 112" screen (98" horizontal) with throw distance of 14.4'. If I take some of my scrap Center Stage material and put it up on the image and rotate it more....say 35 deg. it goes away entirely.


----------



## Mark P

Just out of curiosity whats the biggest screen you can get turning this stuff on a 45-60?


Im really too lazy to do the math.


----------



## mrlittlejeans

I built a screen using the sheerweave4500 material a few months back and have some moire on a 16:9 screen using a JVC RS20 but it disappears when I put the anamorphic lens in place so not a concern. What does concern me is the lost detail from the screen fabric. A pixel grid is not able to be resolved. To focus, I have to use a piece of white paper in front of the screen. I haven't seen this mentioned in any of the SMX, Seymour or DIY threads but is an issue. Does anyone else notice this? Does it bother anyone else?


----------



## vernonl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/15438129
> 
> 
> I built a screen using the sheerweave4500 material a few months back and have some moire on a 16:9 screen using a JVC RS20 but it disappears when I put the anamorphic lens in place so not a concern. What does concern me is the lost detail from the screen fabric. A pixel grid is not able to be resolved. To focus, I have to use a piece of white paper in front of the screen. I haven't seen this mentioned in any of the SMX, Seymour or DIY threads but is an issue. Does anyone else notice this? Does it bother anyone else?



I've found that with the 1080UB the pixel grid only discernible once you the hit the 30 degree mark. Before that, there is no discernible grid and I've focussed it much the same way you do. Depending on your view, if there's no pixel grid but also no moire, the final product should be more film-like which a lot of people doing this sort of setup appreciate more than crisp defined pixels. In my case, the moire was always present until I could make out the grid, so it's a moot point for me.


----------



## hulkss




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brassos* /forum/post/15420573
> 
> 
> p.s. just noticed a couple of diagonal down light folds on either side near the bottom. Very light and only viewable on bright full screen shots. Will let the screen hang a couple of days and see how they go. I will probably call the company and ask how to adjust turnbuckles if that is needed. Still amazing picture.



I had a similar issue with waves in the lower corners of my screen. The material seems very stable and does not change over time. By lightly pulling on the screen perimeter I could tell it needed to pull down more at the lower corners. The corners can not be adjusted to pull down more except by slackening the edge tab cable which did not help.


I noticed there is some extra room in the sewn pocket that holds the bottom cross bar. I slipped a piece of ordinary twin lead lamp electrical cord into the pocket (lift on the end of the cross bar so it slides in easily). That took up some clearance and pulled the corners much flatter on my screen. I experimented pushing the cord in different amounts until I got the best results. You can fine tune it by putting it at the bottom or the side of the pocket. On one corner I had to sort of spiral it from the bottom to the side of the bar. Most likely you will have to adjust the edge tab cable at the same time. Just a light amount of tension seems best as to not lift the cross bar. Good luck.


----------



## brassos

Thanks for tip. I had noticed that i can rotate the pocket at the bottom of the screen just slightly and the folds decreased. I think the "cord shim" idea is great will experiment tonight.


----------



## davedelite

OK....I just decided to figure out moire sensitivity on Center Stage material to determine if it was going to be worth my while to attempt to reduce this. Here is my summary of careful findings...


Screen size is 98" horizontal and 55" vertical for 112" on 1.78.


Epson Home Cinema 6500 UB at 14.4' throw on ceiling mount.


Normal seating distance is 12-13'


Moire is extreme and not watchable (in my opinion) if material is not rotated at all. Wavy horizontal pattern of notice from my viewing distance....


My current material is angled at 16%. Moire did not bother me for first week of watching from primary seating but upon looking for it at screen distance and backing out it seemed to disappear at 9.5 to 10' from screen. Moire is a NW/SE (or vice versa) soft pattern .... much improved over no angling...but does cause those now focussing on it to want to improve it in case they are up and walking around in a movie, etc.


Rotating to 20 deg the moire is no longer noticeable at 7.5 to 8 feet from screen


Rotating at 25 deg the moire is no longer noticeable at 5 to 5.5' from the screen. Note, this is now within the distance of clear notice of the weave itself, so the screen aspect one would notice now is the weave itself (vs. a white sheet of paper say) rather than the moire.


Rotating it to 35 degree and all moire apparently goes away even at distance right up at the screen.


In sum, I feel I can do better than my 16 degree which I felt was enough when I made the screen two years ago with an Epson tw-700 to be future proof also for 1080p....and I guess it is for many projectors. But, I will be targeting the 25 degree sweet spot....and may only get to 22 or 23....but that is fine I believe.


Talking to Chris today, it appears that 25 degree would be the maximum I could rotate for a 60 x 103 out dimension of the frame (before I put my border on top of it....


Hope this study helps others with this material and the Epson....


Again, this was all done with my screen size and throw distance....your mileage may vary


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/15438129
> 
> 
> ...What does concern me is the lost detail from the screen fabric. A pixel grid is not able to be resolved. To focus, I have to use a piece of white paper in front of the screen. I haven't seen this mentioned in any of the SMX, Seymour or DIY threads but is an issue. Does anyone else notice this? Does it bother anyone else?



It doesn't seem to be an issue. The material has an extruded vinyl surface on the threads, which provides a nice surface on which to focus on. Center Stage material maintains 99% of ANSI contrast, which is class-leading for woven AT screens. On my Marantz VP11 I can very finely resolve not only pixel grid but the fine gray line in-between pixels, on a 1080p 120" diagonal screen. I can actually measure its fill ratio.


As a side note, unless you're working with computer text, I think the Marantz's sharply focused inter-pixel grid is to the detriment of the overall picture quality. I'd choose a less digital-looking picture structure.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

All -


Starting last week, we're changing from the previous "15 degree" standard to a "max tilt" configuration. All the retractables will use the maximum tilt allowable from the material, which will range from 17 to 30 degrees, depending on size (the larger the screen, the less is needed). That way, no matter how Epsony your projector is at whatever size you want, you can rest assured that it will be as moire proof as physically possible, and as always, backed by our guarantee.


For the DIY screens, contact us for your screen size and we'll figure out what max tilt is and what's needed. You can get up to about a 11-12' wide piece size before the tilt needs to be reduced below 15 degrees to fit on the roll, but again, the necessity of tilting vanishes at those large sizes anyway.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/15464786
> 
> 
> All -
> 
> 
> Starting last week, we're changing from the previous "15 degree" standard to a "max tilt" configuration. All the retractables will use the maximum tilt allowable from the material, which will range from 17 to 30 degrees, depending on size (the larger the screen, the less is needed). That way, no matter how Epsony your projector is at whatever size you want, you can rest assured that it will be as moire proof as physically possible, and as always, backed by our guarantee.
> 
> 
> For the DIY screens, contact us for your screen size and we'll figure out what max tilt is and what's needed. You can get up to about a 11-12' wide piece size before the tilt needs to be reduced below 15 degrees to fit on the roll, but again, the necessity of tilting vanishes at those large sizes anyway.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Chris,


Good move, this makes a lot of sense. My Center Stage screen PQ is still looking great with my Sony VW-40, but I can see where some of the more pixelated projectors would need more tilt, and why not do all you can?


Mike


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/15464786
> 
> 
> ...All the retractables will use the maximum tilt allowable from the material, which will range from 17 to 30 degrees, depending on size (the larger the screen, the less is needed). ...



Chris, Have you seen any interaction between fabric tilt and the tab tensioning system? With fabric at no tilt, the horizontal tensioning system would pull directly along those not-very-stretchable fibers and only affect horizontal tension. But with the material at an angle, the horizontal pull of the tab tensioning would have a vertically compressive component. That might or might not lead to the waves in the screen corners. With more stretch, the tilted fabric might also need more adjustability in the tensioning mechanism.


----------



## Doug G

After having seen the effect with the 1080UB I tried to buy, using max available tilt is a great way to go. I think the majority of LCDs are like the 1080UB in that the fill rate is significantly less than DLP/LcoS and with the greater inter-pixel spacing, moire is much more of a problem.


I also re-tensioned my cables over the Xmas break to eliminate some minor waves I had in the lower corners, but mostly to eliminate a rather noticeable bulge just above the batten bar. A disclaimer here, I'm using the screen at a position significantly (like 5-6") higher than I spec'd to Chris so in now way do I blame his workmanship or quality control for either of these conditions. It was only a minor adjustment in any case. A couple turns to the left of each turnbuckle to distribute the weight more evenly between screen and bar and now both issues are neutralized.


I also used a piece of white paper to focus. I had a fellow AVS and RS1 owner help, he held it and gave me focus instructions until we had it as crisp as could be. I may not be able to make out pixel structure at my seating distance (then again the fill rate for the RS1 is really high) but never have I found the picture to be dull or un-sharp looking even in the least.


----------



## TBrooke

I keep hearing about the Epsons but what about the Pany's like the 3000 that are supposed to be more film like. Has anyone tried one with the XD fabric and is the tilt necessary?


Tom Brooke


----------



## jonlucas

Hi Guys

New to the forum, just bought a 100inch prismasonic curved screen and HD-5000R anamorphic lens. But have no Screen material yet. Have a Panasonic PTAE3000 and can tell you that am a bit gutted that it doesnt really do auto 2.35:1 to 16:9 lens shift very well as


1. You need to have the projector mounted in the middle of the screen or the digital shift doesnt shift enough!!

2. You cant easily switch between formats with one click of the remote!!

3. While watching Dark Knight on Bluray, the movie keeps switching between 2.35:1 + 16:9 so you get bleed top and bottom when zoomed out! Shame they didnt add digital masking to the image.


Seems anamorphic is the only way to 2.35:1.


I would like to wall mount 3 X M&K MP 150,s behind the screen so no speakers are visible at all. The screen will have to sit about 4-6 inches in front of the speakers. I presume i will have to toe in slightly the LR speakers as the speakers need to be directly facing the curvature of the screen?


The curved screen design allows the user to staple and type of screen to it, and has a tensioning system.


I was hoping to use the Seymour AV AT screen as from the reviews looks great value for money, no moire and totally AT. Will the screen backing work on the curvature?


Can you recommend if this is going to suitable, I am sitting 15ft from the screen. The projector is about 20ft from the screen.


How does one go about ordering the material, i cant see an order form on the AVSemour website?



Thanks in advance!


Jon


----------



## bmwracer3

Just send Chris an email and he will write up a bill and send it via Google Checkout.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/15474902
> 
> 
> Chris, Have you seen any interaction between fabric tilt and the tab tensioning system? With fabric at no tilt, the horizontal tensioning system would pull directly along those not-very-stretchable fibers and only affect horizontal tension. But with the material at an angle, the horizontal pull of the tab tensioning would have a vertically compressive component. That might or might not lead to the waves in the screen corners. With more stretch, the tilted fabric might also need more adjustability in the tensioning mechanism.



What you're pointing out does complicate things for sure and a source of ongoing efforts. A balance between side and down forces is therefore the goal.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonlucas* /forum/post/15507422
> 
> 
> I presume i will have to toe in slightly the LR speakers as the speakers need to be directly facing the curvature of the screen?



Nope. The material is acoustically inert enough that you can have any speaker-to-screen angle you wish and there are no measurable effects.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonlucas* /forum/post/15507422
> 
> 
> Will the screen backing work on the curvature?



If you need the black backing layer (most fixed frames don't need it because it's relatively easy to get things dark and reasonably nonreflective), it can be attached on top of the screen material. It doesn't even require a full attachment. It can just hang there and block light.


Your seating distance of 15ft is great.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## cpc

Projector question.


Is there anybody out there with a Sony HW10 using a Seymour AT screen? Other Sony LCOS projector owners (more people like the VW40 owner I notice here)? How far away are your viewers from the screen? Did you need any tilt to remove moire? I am expecting to get a Sony HW10 within a few days, so I'm hoping this projector is a good choice. It's a LCOS, so right away it has a leg up with higher fill factor. I'm just wondering if any owners here could share their experiences.


Speaker question.


I asked Chris about this, and his answer was what I was thinking too, but I'm also wondering if other people have experience they can share. We both feel I need to put the bottom screen edge between the drivers, but there are ports there, and there isn't a lot of space between the drivers. I have a pair of PSB Image T65 towers as my front speakers. Regardless of screen, I am planning to either turn my C60 centre channel vertical or use a 3rd T65 as a centre. In any case, the tower speakers present a little bit of a problem. They have lot's of drivers and ports. The speakers look like the attachment.


I don't think I can afford a retractable screen, so I will probably be making a DIY screen. Will I have any issues with regard to where I locate the bottom edge of the screen in relation to the drivers and ports on my tower speakers? I was thinking of putting the bottom screen edge between the top two woofers, or between the bottom two woofers. I prefer not to raise my speakers too high, as the tweeter is already at a very good height. Also, putting the screen too low does introduce issues with having to use too much lens shift. So has anybody had to deal with an issue like this? Did you manage ok putting the bottom screen edge just below the midrange driver (in my case it's a mid-woofer)?


BTW... I was thinking that a 2.37:1 CIH setup allows you to put your speakers farther apart. I'm going 2.37:1 CIH anyways, but I noticed that in comparing measurements, with a 16:9 screen, I'd have to decide to either put the speakers at the side, too close to the walls, or inside the screen, putting them much closer together, or putting them half-way in and half-way out, which would be bad. By going 2.37:1 it allows me to easily position my front L & R towers without fear of them being too far apart, too close together or half-way cut off by the side of the screen.


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc* /forum/post/15536072
> 
> 
> I need to put the bottom screen edge between the drivers, but there are ports there, and there isn't a lot of space between the drivers.



How much air puffs out of the ports at reference levels? Can you place the screen far enough in front of the speakers to not affect the near-field air movement? A six inch separation comes to mind. Otherwise it looks like wherever you place the lower screen edge will have a sonic effect. If you had to live with that, you could place that screen edge wherever you wanted.


----------



## cpc

I can honestly say not a huge amount of air puffs out at reference levels. Since there are three 6.5" woofers and three 2" ports, each port isn't putting out that much air on it's own. The response of the speakers don't go much below 26 hz. In fact, I remember watching the woofer movement during low bass parts of songs and each of the woofers didn't move much. Seymour says you can put the screen 2" away from a speaker, although they aren't saying anything about ports. I'll start with the 2" and if that doesn't work, I'll try 3 and 4,5 6" etc. I guess it will require testing.


----------



## cpc

Any chance we'll see a picture of the new material vs the original material?


----------



## skid_68

I just bought my screen material yesterday. Not sure how long it takes to ship. But when I get it. Ill post a screenshot of the new XD material if no one else has by then.


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc* /forum/post/15539359
> 
> 
> Any chance we'll see a picture of the new material vs the original material?



I have a swatch of new material I can put on my old material to show the difference, if anyone wants me to shoot that. It might be Wed night before I can get it posted though.


----------



## Doug G

Chris - How does the flexibility and weight of the XD compare to the standard material? Just curious.


bmwracer3 - I'd love to see that shot when you have a chance and hear any other comments on the XD you may have.


----------



## oman321

+1


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Doug G* /forum/post/15542520
> 
> 
> Chris - How does the flexibility and weight of the XD compare to the standard material? Just curious.
> 
> 
> bmwracer3 - I'd love to see that shot when you have a chance and hear any other comments on the XD you may have.



Post #303 has my comments in it. I'll get that photo as soon as I can. Wednesday AM might actually work.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Doug G* /forum/post/15542520
> 
> 
> Chris - How does the flexibility and weight of the XD compare to the standard material? Just curious.
> 
> 
> bmwracer3 - I'd love to see that shot when you have a chance and hear any other comments on the XD you may have.



Hi Doug -


Not yet sure on the flexibility of the XD versus the standard material. For fixed DIY it acts the same - the stretch is very similar. But when I think flexibility I think about how it acts in the retractables and I haven't used the XD in those yet since we don't make really small or really wide 2.35 screens (yet).


Regarding weight, the XD is a little heavier material, but not enough to affect the weight specs of the retractables.


I'll get fabric shots soon - I've been collecting various other materials for a nice color-correct family shot.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Gen4 motors are released now. These are updated versions of our standard motors, which are faster and have many more control options. The standard 2-remote RF motor is still the simplest and least-expensive solution, but there are now more options.


The Gen4 motors are now available in 4-wire configuration. You can directly wire those to a maintained 3-position switch, or if you want more control options you can wire it into our motor control box. This box allows you to plug in several different IR sensors, connect a momentary 3-position wall switch, includes load monitoring and two programmable intermediate positions.


We'll still carry the premium Somfy options, but we surely needed less costly automation-friendly methods of motor control.


All motors are another dB or so quieter now due to a new mounting design and components on the endcaps.


----------



## skid_68

well I got my new XD material today(Thanks Chris







). So Im posting some pics of it as promised. Is a crazy weave. Too bad im a ways away from putting it up.











































and here is a shot of the original centerstage material I found online.


----------



## cpc

Interesting. Looks neat. Appears to have a more directional arrangement of holes. From your pics it looks like the holes are found in alternating horizontal lines, with pairs of 'no-hole' material in between. I can imagine this will look better both by itself, and when an image is projected on it. Interesting to hear how it sounds compared to the original material. Thanks for the pics and good comparison with the original material


----------



## davedelite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davedelite* /forum/post/15442388
> 
> 
> OK....I just decided to figure out moire sensitivity on Center Stage material to determine if it was going to be worth my while to attempt to reduce this. Here is my summary of careful findings...
> 
> 
> Screen size is 98" horizontal and 55" vertical for 112" on 1.78.
> 
> 
> Epson Home Cinema 6500 UB at 14.4' throw on ceiling mount.
> 
> 
> Normal seating distance is 12-13'
> 
> 
> Moire is extreme and not watchable (in my opinion) if material is not rotated at all. Wavy horizontal pattern of notice from my viewing distance....
> 
> 
> My current material is angled at 16%. Moire did not bother me for first week of watching from primary seating but upon looking for it at screen distance and backing out it seemed to disappear at 9.5 to 10' from screen. Moire is a NW/SE (or vice versa) soft pattern .... much improved over no angling...but does cause those now focussing on it to want to improve it in case they are up and walking around in a movie, etc.
> 
> 
> Rotating to 20 deg the moire is no longer noticeable at 7.5 to 8 feet from screen
> 
> 
> Rotating at 25 deg the moire is no longer noticeable at 5 to 5.5' from the screen. Note, this is now within the distance of clear notice of the weave itself, so the screen aspect one would notice now is the weave itself (vs. a white sheet of paper say) rather than the moire.
> 
> 
> Rotating it to 35 degree and all moire apparently goes away even at distance right up at the screen.
> 
> 
> In sum, I feel I can do better than my 16 degree which I felt was enough when I made the screen two years ago with an Epson tw-700 to be future proof also for 1080p....and I guess it is for many projectors. But, I will be targeting the 25 degree sweet spot....and may only get to 22 or 23....but that is fine I believe.
> 
> 
> Talking to Chris today, it appears that 25 degree would be the maximum I could rotate for a 60 x 103 out dimension of the frame (before I put my border on top of it....
> 
> 
> Hope this study helps others with this material and the Epson....
> 
> 
> Again, this was all done with my screen size and throw distance....your mileage may vary



How do you like me being obnoxious and quoting myself?? Anyway, just wanted to update for those who are interested. Reporting here with the Epson Home Cinema 6500 UB.....now virtually moire free. I received my new shipment of Center Stage screen 98" wide from Chris this week (the original...XD was not an option given my need for tilt....but regardless, the swatches I looked at had no perceptible difference unless you were looking for something). I just re-made my frame with 26 degree angle and am tickled pink that moire is no longer an issue. The performance is slightly better than I had expected from my testing in the previous post I have quoted....I can detect very faint moire (ONLY because I am looking for it) at about 3' now.....way better than even necessary...and at this distance much less noticeable than the screen weave itself.


Like I say, I am very pleased at the decision to re-orient the material and to restretch. I also used the guide on Seymour AV website regarding the staple gun pattern and specifically filling DIY frame holes with something the same thickness as the frame to prevent material sag and this is critical. Using this method my total time with one helper was under an hour for stretching and MUCH better than the "velcro on the backside of the frame" process I used 2 years ago.


----------



## RMK!

Hi Chris (all),

I am considering a Seymour powered screen in either 120” or 125 diag in my dedicated HT room. I have a JVC HD100 (RS2) that is currently 15.5” (I can change this) from the screen. Seating is about the same and the Projector Central Pro Calculator says that I need at least a 1.2 gain for a 120” diag screen.


As you can see from the photo of the front soundstage the screen will cover the center speaker but will not fully cover all of the drivers on the mains (I will need extra drop as the ceiling is 9’). The top driver on the mains is a coaxial mid with the tweeter in the center. The bottom two are bass drivers and I’m thinking that the weight bar and bottom black mask will be between the upper bass driver and the coax with the bottom of the AT screen fabric exactly at the bottom of the coax of the mains and center.


In other words, the bar will be in front of the upper bass driver unless I put the mains on pedestals like the center is currently on. That would elevate the coax of the mains to a different level than the center. Do you see a big problem with the bar being in front of the upper bass driver?


Of course, this all gets easy if I remove the Plasma but I like the versatility it gives me for viewing non-movie material and also allows viewing with more ambient light. I have windows in the room but with blackout shades and heavy curtains so the light control is good when needed.


BTW, the large black boxes along the wall behind the mains are subwoofers. The current screen is an Elite Cinetension II (106" diag).


----------



## phoenix96




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/15102411
> 
> 
> Hi Vernon -
> 
> 
> I know there are several other 1080UB folks out there without issues, but perhaps you've hit a size / projector combo that has problems. There are a few cases of "lucky" combinations like this, which is why we send out free samples to confirm everything will work before hand. But since you often can't fully know how everything will look for you until you get YOUR installation fired up, we make it right, hence our guarantee.



I've got a 1080UB and have been using it with a 110" wide (126" diagonal) screen for the last few months. I've never noticed any moire, although I can't say I've actually looked for it..... Now that I've read this I'll have to try *not* to look for it in the future.










I'm upgrading to a 6500UB any day now, so hopefully that doesn't have any problem either...


----------



## cpc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phoenix96* /forum/post/15590414
> 
> 
> I've got a 1080UB and have been using it with a 110" wide screen for the last few months. I've never noticed any moire, although I can't say I've actually looked for it..... Now that I've read this I'll have to try *not* to look for it in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm upgrading to a 6500UB any day now, so hopefully that doesn't have any problem either...



How far away are you seated from your screen?


----------



## brassos

Hello,

I had some waves in the left side of my 120" screen. tried adjusting the turnbuckles with no success. Placed a thin piece of 1/2" i.d. plastic tubing cut in half lengthwise to 3" in length under the bottom left end of lower bar. Took out almost all of the lower wave.

I had just about given up on the upper ones when i read an article here about screens being rolled slightly off square on the top tube. So i reached up into the case and lifted the left side of the screen slightly. Waves vanished. I then lifted the screen again and placed a small folded piece of paper under the screen material and on top of the roller when fully lowered. I will replace the paper tomorrow with perhaps some felt or chamois like material layered to reach the best thickness.

I do have the "puckers" at the tension points on the vertical cable but they are fine. I'm just glad i found the article about using duct tape or material to raise the screen slightly.

Great crew here and thanks again for private tells with tips.

Scott


----------



## phoenix96




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc* /forum/post/15591395
> 
> 
> How far away are you seated from your screen?



Just over 9 feet.


----------



## cpc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phoenix96* /forum/post/15591926
> 
> 
> Just over 9 feet.



Sweet. That helps me. I hope to have most viewers seated 10.5 to 11 feet away


----------



## vernonl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phoenix96* /forum/post/15590414
> 
> 
> I've got a 1080UB and have been using it with a 110" wide (126" diagonal) screen for the last few months. I've never noticed any moire, although I can't say I've actually looked for it..... Now that I've read this I'll have to try *not* to look for it in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm upgrading to a 6500UB any day now, so hopefully that doesn't have any problem either...




I think size is definitely a key factor. I have the 103" diagonal and I've noticed that the pixel size of the 1080UB is almost 1:1 the size of the hole spacings for the screen. Any bigger and I can see that moire might not be as much of an issue. If I were seated 12-13' from my screen I'd have no discernable moire but unfortunatey my seating is 10' which is very discernible to my eyes (and I by no means have 20/20).


Good info for folks w/ bigger screens in mind w/ the Epsons


EDIT: To test the theory of bigger screens having reduced moire, I zoomed out my Epson to your screen size and the moire virtually disappears so I can confirm that for folks.


----------



## firebrick

Hey I live about 15 miles from Ames, do you guys have a store where I can come see your screens?


----------



## chriscmore

firebrick - no, we don't have a regular type of store or showroom (yet). PM, email or call for an appt. to arrange a visit if you're interested.


----------



## phoenix96




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vernonl* /forum/post/15595853
> 
> 
> I think size is definitely a key factor. I have the 103" diagonal and I've noticed that the pixel size of the 1080UB is almost 1:1 the size of the hole spacings for the screen. Any bigger and I can see that moire might not be as much of an issue. If I were seated 12-13' from my screen I'd have no discernable moire but unfortunatey my seating is 10' which is very discernible to my eyes (and I by no means have 20/20).
> 
> 
> Good info for folks w/ bigger screens in mind w/ the Epsons
> 
> 
> EDIT: To test the theory of bigger screens having reduced moire, I zoomed out my Epson to your screen size and the moire virtually disappears so I can confirm that for folks.



That makes sense.


I've had my 6500 UB for a couple days now and have still not noticed any moire (even watching The Dark Knight last night, which has some scenes known for producing moire).


----------



## tasblades

Hey Guys, how far from my back wall should I build the false wall for the screen? I want to use the at screen (Chris's screen) as I think it will make my already un-symmetrical room look better. I want to go wide as I can but as most folks do, I have limitations. I would like to keep my first row seating where it is becasue of the side door (check my build thread) so I don't want to be too close and impinge the viewing angle too much. Any thoughts?


Thanks!


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tasblades* /forum/post/15701856
> 
> 
> Hey Guys, how far from my back wall should I build the false wall for the screen? I want to use the at screen (Chris's screen) as I think it will make my already un-symmetrical room look better. I want to go wide as I can but as most folks do, I have limitations. I would like to keep my first row seating where it is becasue of the side door (check my build thread) so I don't want to be too close and impinge the viewing angle too much. Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> Thanks!



How big are the speakers you want to put behind the false wall? Do your speakers need any room around them (are they dipoles?). Any other gear you want to hide there? If you want to make it as small as possible to preserve your front seating location, it should just be a matter of measuring what you want to put back there and making it fit.


----------



## BKEW

So any updates on the new material? Pictures? What rotation if reqiured?


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BKEW* /forum/post/15740691
> 
> 
> So any updates on the new material? Pictures? What rotation if reqiured?



I'm getting my new material in the next few days. I'll be "upgrading" from the old Center Stage material, and will let you know how that turns out.


I never did get those comparison pics uploaded. Maybe tonight...


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmwracer3* /forum/post/15742550
> 
> 
> __________________
> 
> ~Chris
> 
> 
> Obligatory build thread
> 
> 
> Obey Post #7.



You got me curious; what Post #7? It certainly isn't Post#7 in the linked "Obligatory build thread"


~Curiously idle minds want to know..


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/15744436
> 
> 
> You got me curious; what Post #7? It certainly isn't Post#7 in the linked "Obligatory build thread"
> 
> 
> ~Curiously idle minds want to know..



It is in the Pioneer BDP-51FD Owner's Thread. 1/2 of all posts in that thread are asked by people who hadn't seen the glorious wisdom that post #7 contains. Post #7 answers all. Except "WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET DTS-MA DECODING". No one knows that answer.










I just linked the post in my sig, to aid any others in confusion. ;-)


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmwracer3* /forum/post/15744463
> 
> 
> It is in the Pioneer BDP-51FD Owner's Thread. 1/2 of all posts in that thread are asked by people who hadn't seen the glorious wisdom that post #7 contains. Post #7 answers all. Except "WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET DTS-MA DECODING". No one knows that answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just linked the post in my sig, to aid any others in confusion. ;-)



Now I know everything.







AND 7 evenly divides 42, the other answer to everything.


----------



## Bulldogger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/15102411
> 
> 
> One way to reduce the sensitivity to moiré is to increase the hole density. Here's some specs on how the new XD material compares in this respect:
> 
> 
> Perfed vinyl: ~49 holes / sq.in.
> 
> Microperfed vinyl: ~200 holes / sq.in.
> 
> Woven 2x2 pattern (e.g. Center Stage and others are nearly identical): ~500 holes / sq.in.
> 
> Center Stage XD: 1,500+ holes / sq.in.
> 
> 
> I'll get more comprehensive with the specs and benefits soon, but the applications centered in the cross hairs are:
> 
> - Those rare cases where a projector/size combo doesn't look perfect
> 
> - Seats are pushing the minimum seating distance, say in the 8-10' range
> 
> - Need to handle higher pixel counts (4k) on smaller screens
> 
> - Less costly, easier, DIY with higher performance
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Chris, what is the openness of your new Center Stage XD?


----------



## bmwracer3

I received my new material on Friday and I've been taking tons of pictures to document the process. I took some pics of Ratouille on BluRay with the old material, and with the new material sample attached just so you all could see the difference. I took some close up pics, as well as document the removal of the old and attachment of the new. I then hung the screen and have giant waves in the bottom center of the screen *doh!*, so I gotta work with that today. Should finish up my photo shoot today, and with Chris' permission, I'll post all of the pics.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bulldogger* /forum/post/15768062
> 
> 
> Chris, what is the openness of your new Center Stage XD?



Hey Bulldogger -


"Optimal." I'll be keeping that spec proprietary.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## bmwracer3

Here's a link to my XD gallery .


Let me know if there are any problems viewing it or if you have any questions. Thanks!


The source material in these screen shots was either the HQV 1080p test disc or Ratatouille on BluRay, via a Pioneer 51FD and a Mits HC6500. I still have some pattern, especially on faces, but it's better than before. I'm not sure how to get totally rid of it, and I think maybe I sit too close.


Oh well, stop staring at pixels and enjoy the show, that's what my mum used to say.


----------



## oman321

Looks great bmw!!


----------



## scottyb

bmw,

Is the brightness about the same?

If i have original without any moire problems would you switch?


Thanks,

scott


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/15775674
> 
> 
> bmw,
> 
> Is the brightness about the same?
> 
> If i have original without any moire problems would you switch?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> scott



Scott,


I'd say the brightness is about the same, but there is a hair more ANSI contrast. If you don't have any moire problems with the original, I would think you should be ok. The only way to check for sure is to have Chris send you a sample. Everybody's pj's and throw distance is different, so I can't throw a blanket statement on saying that this material will be unequivocally better for everybody. It probably will be though, based on what I've seen on my setup.


Thanks,


Chris


----------



## oman321

Hey bmw, I know you had your old A lens on the block before. What new lens did you get if any? Are you happier with it?.


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oman321* /forum/post/15776259
> 
> 
> Hey bmw, I know you had your old A lens on the block before. What new lens did you get if any? Are you happier with it?.



I'm zooming for now until I can save my nickels up for a Prismasonic/Panamorph. Then of course I'll rebuild my screen yet again. ACK!>!>!(*@#$(*asdljhasdfn


----------



## oman321

Well at least one of your options is now cheaper since they did away with dealers. I think it's prismasonic, can't remember which.


----------



## mustang5o

I'm thinking about switching to an acoustically "transparent" screen. I'm trying to decide between the newer Elite perf screen or a DIY screen. Anyone have any comparisons between these two? So far this seems like the better route but a brief review at projector reviews said the Elite was decent.


Of course if I go AT I'm going to have to switch speakers. I just don't have room for my existing speakers unless I just fire the rear ports in to the furnace room behind that wall. I might try the other side but I'd still lesson my room length by like 1 1/2-2'. Then again, I kind of don't have that room now with my speakers sitting out on the floor.


----------



## BKEW

BMWRACER3,


Just a question, are the material pictures posted in your the link posted backwards??

It could just be the pictures but if you scroll back a page on this thread, the material you posted as "OLD" looks a lot like the "New" material posted on page 12?


Again it could just be the picture. I am just wondering as I am going to order from Chris some material and I am still leaning towards the "original" as the pattern looks smoother.


EDIT:

Ok I had the page 12 pictures up with your pictures and honestly it is hard to tell. I think the 3rd picture of the new material on page 12 gave me the impression above.


Can you tell me which what has a smoother texture?


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BKEW* /forum/post/15797676
> 
> 
> BMWRACER3,
> 
> 
> Just a question, are the material pictures posted in your the link posted backwards??
> 
> It could just be the pictures but if you scroll back a page on this thread, the material you posted as "OLD" looks a lot like the "New" material posted on page 12?
> 
> 
> Again it could just be the picture. I am just wondering as I am going to order from Chris some material and I am still leaning towards the "original" as the pattern looks smoother.
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Ok I had the page 12 pictures up with your pictures and honestly it is hard to tell. I think the 3rd picture of the new material on page 12 gave me the impression above.
> 
> 
> Can you tell me which what has a smoother texture?



The XD is definitely smoother. I'll take a more like for like picture tonight to compare. My XD shot before was taken while I was standing over the material in while it was laying out on the floor.


----------



## BKEW

BMWRACER3,

Much appreciated. I am going to contact Chris and order the new XD.


Off topic question, in your pictures "new material laying on the floor". The white column on the left of that picture and the one in the back ground along the wall. Are they support post covered that way? Or just decorative? I know off topic but we are working on our basement and my wife saw it loved the look. We have two supports I can not hide in walls. Either way I think we found an answer in your pictures =)


Thanks for the feed back on the XD


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BKEW* /forum/post/15801220
> 
> 
> BMWRACER3,
> 
> Much appreciated. I am going to contact Chris and order the new XD.
> 
> 
> Off topic question, in your pictures "new material laying on the floor". The white column on the left of that picture and the one in the back ground along the wall. Are they support post covered that way? Or just decorative? I know off topic but we are working on our basement and my wife saw it loved the look. We have two supports I can not hide in walls. Either way I think we found an answer in your pictures =)
> 
> 
> Thanks for the feed back on the XD



XD is the way to go.


Those are support posts in the pics. Basically you take 4 rips of MDF, glue them together, flute them with a router, and they slap crown at the top and 1 or 2 pieces of shoe on the bottom. Pretty easy really, although I hired my trim guy to do it. I wanted to buy some time back.


----------



## laugsbach

I just ordered the XD material for my DIY screen (115" wide 2.35:1) build. The evolution of this thread with all the user comments and along with Chris from Seymour AV, sold me on this product.


Thanks for sharing all of your experiences.


----------



## BKEW

I received my XD in the last few days and I have to say it is excellent material. Very pleased with the material and Chris. Would highley recommend to anyone looking at the DIY route.


----------



## V.X.Donique

Screen ordered, thanks Chris...


----------



## mapitc0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mustang5o* /forum/post/15795465
> 
> 
> I'm thinking about switching to an acoustically "transparent" screen. I'm trying to decide between the newer Elite perf screen or a DIY screen. Anyone have any comparisons between these two? So far this seems like the better route but a brief review at projector reviews said the Elite was decent.
> 
> 
> Of course if I go AT I'm going to have to switch speakers. I just don't have room for my existing speakers unless I just fire the rear ports in to the furnace room behind that wall. I might try the other side but I'd still lesson my room length by like 1 1/2-2'. Then again, I kind of don't have that room now with my speakers sitting out on the floor.



The projector central review of the elite material was for their new woven, not the perforated vinyl they're still stelling at sizes of 110" and below (16:9). No one has seen their new material to compare to the old or new center stage, shearweave 4500, or anything. I go with what's been tested and proven by the community.


----------



## V.X.Donique

Screen delivered in perfect shape!


Thanks again Chris for your help and patience!


----------



## sonofdbn

Are the Center Stage screens available ONLY as retractable screens? Or are they sold as fixed screens as well? From the Seymour AV website it seems as if they are only retractable (or DIY).


----------



## mlbrand

They only sell retractables ready made, but sell the screen material and possibly frames to make your own fixed screen.


----------



## kainers

Hello hello,


I received a sample of the Seymour, and Seymour XD material last week. Can definately see the weave is smaller and tighter on the XD. I taped the material up to a wall, and a sample of Carada BW. Both Seymours, and the Carada look great to me, to be honest...I have a hard time telling the difference from 9-10 feet. I thought it would be obvious (higher gain. no holes), so I am wondering if that sounds right? Could it be some of the high gloss paint is reflecting from behind the holes on the AT material, thus making it brighter? Or both just that good ?


----------



## mlbrand

That good, of course!







Actually, I think it's harder to pick out a screen that is brighter, if the gain of ALL the material you are looking at is _adequate_. But if you are on the edge, with the lower gain screens being obviously too dim, then the brighter screens will be more obvious, because you really _needed_ the extra brightness. Testing screen gain side by side would also be influenced by the brightness of the movie scene being viewed, and room ambient light. The darker the room and movie scene, the more the difference might stand out as well. All that said, I have always been impressed with the gain and brightness of my SeymourAV AT screen.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kainers* /forum/post/15990743
> 
> 
> Hello hello,
> 
> 
> I received a sample of the Seymour, and Seymour XD material last week. Can definately see the weave is smaller and tighter on the XD. I taped the material up to a wall, and a sample of Carada BW. Both Seymours, and the Carada look great to me, to be honest...I have a hard time telling the difference from 9-10 feet. I thought it would be obvious (higher gain. no holes), so I am wondering if that sounds right? Could it be some of the high gloss paint is reflecting from behind the holes on the AT material, thus making it brighter? Or both just that good ?



Hi Kainers -


You should place something dark behind any AT fabric to more realistically see how it will look. If the surface behind the material is reflective enough, it can introduce artifacts that wouldn't occur in a proper installation.


Also, make sure you're evaluating it with projected light, similar to how you'd be watching a movie with respect to ambient light and throw distance.


I'm a huge fan of the Carada BW material, so if you don't need AT, they're a great product and what I typically recommend. Regarding brightness differences, I've had some people comment that we look nearly as bright (if you're within about 10% it's hard to tell without a meter), and some people notice the BW is definitely brighter. While the BW is certainly higher gain, the real world differences depend on your application. Hence, samples...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## will1383

Ok, how do I email Chris? I need to begin with ordering a couple of samples to make sure I'm getting what I need/want.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *will1383* /forum/post/16009657
> 
> 
> Ok, how do I email Chris? I need to begin with ordering a couple of samples to make sure I'm getting what I need/want.


 [email protected]


----------



## will1383

Thanks. email sent.


----------



## MarkDub

Just ordered my XD material today from Chris. I'm excited to get the screen built next week and try this out as it's the first AT screen I will try. Mine will only be 97" wide for a 2.37 scope screen, but at a 10' viewing distance and with my FPJ1 it should be plenty big. I'll post some pics when it's in use.


----------



## will1383

I still haven't heard back from him. Is he on vacation?


----------



## Doug G

Anyone in the eastern MA or southern NH area still have their box for an x090 retractable?


If so, please PM me.


----------



## yourtoys7

bmwracer3'

I'm having Moire' isue with my just build 135" 2:40:1 screen. I've used 4500 material and didn't get the 96" or something inch., but the smaller one (that might have been my mystake). Look in the link http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1109260&page=3 

I'm using Epson 1080UB, will xd material eliminate my problem? I try to order XD sample as well. Thanks...


----------



## laugsbach

^^


yourtoys7, I just finished my XD DIY screen build (115" wide 2.35:1 with a 4.5 degree tilt). I have a Panny 3000 PJ and sit between 11' to 16' from the screen and I have zero moire issues.


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yourtoys7* /forum/post/16032594
> 
> 
> bmwracer3'
> 
> I'm having Moire' isue with my just build 135" 2:40:1 screen. I've used 4500 material and didn't get the 96" or something inch., but the smaller one (that might have been my mystake). Look in the link http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1109260&page=3
> 
> I'm using Epson 1080UB, will xd material eliminate my problem? I try to order XD sample as well. Thanks...



I don't know about this moire thing. I have a large piece of scrap I'm going to mount up and not do any tilt and see how it looks. It's tough to figure out based upon a little piece of scrap. I read through your thread...I never thought about moving my projector either. Maybe I'll try that too.


Thanks!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yourtoys7* /forum/post/16032594
> 
> 
> I'm having Moire' isue with my just build 135" 2:40:1 screen...



yourtoys7 -


Unfortunately you ordered material from a different source, where they have zero expertise in home theater, and you paid more. I go to considerable effort and cost to offer expertise and send out samples for everyone so that they have images they can be proud of. Even *if* other places were less expensive, it's never a good deal if the end result is no good.


In your case, the XD won't solve your issues because while it requires less rotation to alleviate moire issues, the current 63" roll size won't fit enough tilt for an Epson, one of the projectors sensitive to moire. For the standard Center Stage material, a 16 degree tilt would work perfectly, which we can supply already precision cut to size and angle so you can easily install it and know it works. For the XD, likely about 10 degrees if I were to guess, but since I couldn't accommodate that it's a moot point for now.


To emphasize for the rest of the folks, moire isn't an issue with our material when it's applied how we advise. I can count on one of my high school shop teacher's hands how many customers I have out there with any issues at all. And every single one of them have either been fixed or are waiting on the XD to come out in the larger size so they can grab those improvements, too.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/16039375
> 
> 
> 
> I can count on one of my high school shop teacher's hands how many customers I have out there with any issues at all.



Pretty funny right there.










I played around with the material some more last night (as well as zooming the projector in and out, and noticed a couple of things.


1) I can see the moire pattern rotate as I zoom in and out. Kind of an interesting effect. The only way I could get a grasp on the moire is to zoom my image down to about a 70" wide screen.


2) I finally got rid of moire once I tilted my sample to probably about 35*. I can't wait for the new wide material!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmwracer3* /forum/post/16040184
> 
> 
> 1) I can see the moire pattern rotate as I zoom in and out. Kind of an interesting effect. The only way I could get a grasp on the moire is to zoom my image down to about a 70" wide screen.



Yes, 70" wide is below what we typically recommend for image size, although it can be successfully done. It just takes samples, plenty of tilt, and for that size we can even tilt the XD in it's currently-limited roll width. Due to its ability to handle higher pixel densities, we've successfully applied the XD to a screen as small as 55" wide.


----------



## mkanter

Hey guys, I'm looking for help hooking the SeymourAV screen I'm about to get from Chris up to an Insteon switch so I can control it along with my lighting. I'd like to press the "Watch Movie" button and have the lights dim and the screen drop...










I posted over in the home automation forum, but thought I'd cross-post here for interest and in case any of you had suggestions. Thanks!

SeymourAV Screen Control w/ Insteon, Help Requested


----------



## chriscmore

Hey mkanter -


Perhaps others more familiar with the Insteon products can fill in from that side, but I'll outline your options from my side.


First, if you want to tie screen control into anything else (switches, universal remotes, macros, triggers, iPhone, etc.) you will NOT want the RF-only option (motor code "U" or "V"). With that option you get two dedicated, addressed RF remotes and while it's the most simple and popular solution, it doesn't enable automation.


To tie into automation, there are several paths in increasingly rare order:

* IR: Both the 4-wire control box and Somfy motors can be IR controlled, and with receivers included in your macros. The Gen4 even has several different types of IR receivers. Tying an IR receiver to an IR repeater is easy.

* Dry contact: There are dry contact inputs on the 4-wire control box and the Somfy wall switch. They look for momentary contact,


----------



## sonofdbn

Chris,

With the motors, does the user set how far down the screen goes (and repeat this length of drop automatically every time)? Or is it just either retracted or fully down? Put another way, if the user wants the screen bottom at a particular height off the floor, can it only be done by carefully mounting the case at the correct height?


If I go the DIY route, is it possible to attach velcro or something similar to the screen material without damaging it when pulling it taut - in particular the adhesive backed "Reclosable Fasteners" from 3M as in this PDF ? My thinking is that this way I would be able to adjust the tensioning of the screen easily if I don't get it right initially (almost a certainty).


----------



## vernonl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/16039375
> 
> 
> yourtoys7 -
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you ordered material from a different source, where they have zero expertise in home theater, and you paid more. I go to considerable effort and cost to offer expertise and send out samples for everyone so that they have images they can be proud of. Even *if* other places were less expensive, it's never a good deal if the end result is no good.
> 
> 
> In your case, the XD won't solve your issues because while it requires less rotation to alleviate moire issues, the current 63" roll size won't fit enough tilt for an Epson, one of the projectors sensitive to moire. For the standard Center Stage material, a 16 degree tilt would work perfectly, which we can supply already precision cut to size and angle so you can easily install it and know it works. For the XD, likely about 10 degrees if I were to guess, but since I couldn't accommodate that it's a moot point for now.
> 
> 
> To emphasize for the rest of the folks, moire isn't an issue with our material when it's applied how we advise. I can count on one of my high school shop teacher's hands how many customers I have out there with any issues at all. And every single one of them have either been fixed or are waiting on the XD to come out in the larger size so they can grab those improvements, too.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I learnt this the hard way. I had very little expertise in screens and have the 1080UB. I got the standard tilt and there was some serious moire happening. Chris replaced the screen without a hitch which in and of itself has made me a customer for life, I must say. Show me anyone else who does that...


I got the replacement with more tilt, got it mounted this weekend and all I can say is... WOW. On the 1080UB there isn't an ounce of moire and the picture is WAY sharper than it was because of the extra tilt. I recommend people get samples before ordering. I'll be making Chris's samples my first check when looking at new projectors as well in the future.


Loving my screen Chris...


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonofdbn* /forum/post/16072993
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> With the motors, does the user set how far down the screen goes (and repeat this length of drop automatically every time)? Or is it just either retracted or fully down? Put another way, if the user wants the screen bottom at a particular height off the floor, can it only be done by carefully mounting the case at the correct height?
> 
> 
> If I go the DIY route, is it possible to attach velcro or something similar to the screen material without damaging it when pulling it taut - in particular the adhesive backed "Reclosable Fasteners" from 3M as in this PDF ? My thinking is that this way I would be able to adjust the tensioning of the screen easily if I don't get it right initially (almost a certainty).



I'd like us to be 95% responsible for setting the drop. The closer you can nail that dimension exactly, the better I can maximize the tension cable angle off the top set of tabs. I anchor the cables with little to no extra length (0-2" extra drop than you ordered - max), because mounting the cables to the nearest available anchors will maximize the angle and tension on the top tabs.


The customer can more easily shorten the down-drop limit, obviously, but again that top cable angle is maximized at the ordered dimension here.


The RF-only folks can electronically reprogram the limits using a remote and the programming flow chart in the manual. The 4-wire folks can mechanically adjust the limits with an included tool. The Somfy folks can electronically adjust the limits with the Somfy wall switch. The manual is overdue for updating with the new motor types and controls.


If you go DIY, one option we do is stitch a full perimeter of 1.5" black Velcro and include the hook. While I firstly recommend staples or splining (it's cheap and easy), having Velcro stitched to the screen does give the advantages of removability and repositioning. Even though the Velcro has serious adhesive, we still stitch it because in general adhesives should never be trusted. They drift. The included mating side would need a few staples as well. Email me if you want to go this route so we can minimize the DIY discussions in the thread.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vernonl* /forum/post/16105008
> 
> 
> I got the replacement with more tilt, got it mounted this weekend and all I can say is... WOW. On the 1080UB there isn't an ounce of moire and the picture is WAY sharper than it was because of the extra tilt. I recommend people get samples before ordering. I'll be making Chris's samples my first check when looking at new projectors as well in the future.
> 
> 
> Loving my screen Chris...



Great to hear, Vernon. Due to your experience, the retractables are more bullet-proof, so I shouldn't have to face that again. I'll also be bringing in an Epson or two so I can get more experience with them. I actually enjoyed re-making that one. I really hate having product out there that doesn't meet folks' expectations.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## vernonl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/16106931
> 
> 
> Great to hear, Vernon. Due to your experience, the retractables are more bullet-proof, so I shouldn't have to face that again. I'll also be bringing in an Epson or two so I can get more experience with them. I actually enjoyed re-making that one. I really hate having product out there that doesn't meet folks' expectations.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Watched some Galactica in HD on it last night and I don't usually see much picture difference between the HD and SD on my old screen. This one makes it MUCH more evident that I'm watching HD. Just goes to show how moire can really mess with your picture.


Now my wife can't pry me away from rewatching all my Blurays again lol


----------



## Taz1

Subscribed.


----------



## Razor1911

I've got a JVC RS2 and i'd like to use the new XD material. I'd like to build a 120" 2.40 AR screen (110 wide, 46 tall). My rough calculations give me a tilt angle of about 7 degrees if i allow 4 inches for mounting. Would this be enough of a tilt to avoid moire?


The other complication is that i'd be zooming for 16:9 material. a 46" tall screen at 16:9 is only 94" diagonal. Would the material moire horribly at only 7 degrees?


What is the minimum angle you recommend for this kind of a projector?


----------



## chriscmore

Razor - That should be fine. There are a lot of JVC/Pioneer/Panny/Sony screens with the XD and little to no tilt, although there isn't a disadvantage to tilting so you're right to do what you can. To confirm that both sizes look ok, the only way to really know is test a sample first.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## harleysdontbitc

Chris

Could you send me a test sample as well, drop me an email and I will send you my mailing address

Thanks


----------



## Vcook

Would backing material be needed with this new XD fabric to prevent light from getting through and reflecting off in wall speakers behind it? If so would the backing go directly behind the xd fabric or does there need to be space between the 2 materials?


I'm considering rebuilding my dazian ccc screen with some of this!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vcook* /forum/post/16215638
> 
> 
> Would backing material be needed with this new XD fabric to prevent light from getting through and reflecting off in wall speakers behind it? If so would the backing go directly behind the xd fabric or does there need to be space between the 2 materials?
> 
> 
> I'm considering rebuilding my dazian ccc screen with some of this!



Very few fixed frame installations need the black backing, because as long as it is medium color or darker, and your speakers are reasonably nonreflective, you won't have issues. If you can't fix it with paint, then the black backing is an effective solution of last resort. The Center Stage XD will behave similarly to the current Center Stage material in this regard.


No space is necessary between the two materials. For the retractables, it just hangs somewhat loosely behind the screen.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## TomBonge




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *laugsbach* /forum/post/16033758
> 
> 
> ^^
> 
> 
> yourtoys7, I just finished my XD DIY screen build (115" wide 2.35:1 with a 4.5 degree tilt). I have a Panny 3000 PJ and sit between 11' to 16' from the screen and I have zero moire issues.



I am upgrading to the AE3000 so I have some questions about how the XD screen looks with it. I got a small sample of the XD. My current screen sits 10.5' away, I suspended the sample 1.5' in front of it to simulate where the XD screen would be if I go though with it.


I am afraid a 9' seating distance will be too close. With the AE3000, how does the XD screen look if you sit around 9'? I can just barley see the weave in bright scenes. It's hard to tell how bad it is with such a small sample though.


Also, did you use a black backing with your screen? I can see the light shining off the black lacquer on my center channel though the XD sample, but it might just be because the small sample is open on the sides and too much light reflects back from the real screen behind it. I guess I would have to take the current screen down for an accurate test.


Do you use the zoom memory of the AE3000 for 16x9 on your 2.35:1? Does the image look any better/worse when you zoom in? My screen would be smaller, 96" x 40" for 2.35:1, can you zoom in to 40" height and see if you see any morie pattern with your 4.5 degree tilt? I see no morie at all, but I am testing with my old 720p projector, the AE3000 is not here yet.


The brightness of the XD sample seems about the same as my old screen, even though quite a bit of light passes though it. The color and contrast is way better on the XD. I think the weave pattern has some contrast and saturation enhancing effect. Again, its hard to tell from such a small sample, it might just be because its a 1.5' closer.


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vcook* /forum/post/16215638
> 
> 
> Would backing material be needed with this new XD fabric to prevent light from getting through and reflecting off in wall speakers behind it? If so would the backing go directly behind the xd fabric or does there need to be space between the 2 materials?
> 
> 
> I'm considering rebuilding my dazian ccc screen with some of this!



Vcook, If you do rebuild using the XD, please report how you like it. I have a CCC screen too, and want to replace it (sometime) with the XD material.


----------



## Nedtsc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmwracer3* /forum/post/16040184
> 
> 
> Pretty funny right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I played around with the material some more last night (as well as zooming the projector in and out, and noticed a couple of things.
> 
> 
> 1) I can see the moire pattern rotate as I zoom in and out. Kind of an interesting effect. The only way I could get a grasp on the moire is to zoom my image down to about a 70" wide screen.
> 
> 
> 2) I finally got rid of moire once I tilted my sample to probably about 35*. I can't wait for the new wide material!



Easiest way is to use an IRlinc.


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc* /forum/post/16242438
> 
> 
> Easiest way is to use an IRlinc.



for what?


----------



## laugsbach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomBonge* /forum/post/16240161
> 
> 
> With the AE3000, how does the XD screen look if you sit around 9'? I can just barley see the weave in bright scenes. It's hard to tell how bad it is with such a small sample though.



Hi TomBonge, I will double check this for you at the 9' mark. When I first put the screen up and was playing with the AE3000, it seems to me that I had to get to 3 - 4' to see the weave.



> Quote:
> Also, did you use a black backing with your screen?



I did not use a black backing immediately behind the screen. I did, however, use triple back velvet on an area that was reflective behind my speakers.




> Quote:
> Do you use the zoom memory of the AE3000 for 16x9 on your 2.35:1? Does the image look any better/worse when you zoom in?



Yes I do. Both AR look stunning in my totally dark room.




> Quote:
> My screen would be smaller, 96" x 40" for 2.35:1, can you zoom in to 40" height and see if you see any morie pattern with your 4.5 degree tilt? I see no morie at all, but I am testing with my old 720p projector, the AE3000 is not here yet.



I will take a look for you at 40". I have yet to see any Morie pattern on my screen.



> Quote:
> The brightness of the XD sample seems about the same as my old screen, even though quite a bit of light passes though it. The color and contrast is way better on the XD. I think the weave pattern has some contrast and saturation enhancing effect. Again, its hard to tell from such a small sample, it might just be because its a 1.5' closer.



The AE3000 is located about 17' from my screen and the picture is plenty bright with the Cinema1 factory setting and the lamp set to Economy Mode.


Larry


----------



## Nedtsc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmwracer3* /forum/post/16243091
> 
> 
> for what?



Don't you have an IR remote?


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc* /forum/post/16259803
> 
> 
> Don't you have an IR remote?



I have an IR/RF remote.


----------



## phansson

Chris,


I have a couple of questions. I would like to thank you for the sample that you sent out also.


1. Can you do any custom sizes? I think I would prefer a 2.37 screen.


2. How long before you use the newer material on your electric screens. I need a little more gain if I go with a larger screen.


3. Any idea if you will add a masking option in the future?


Thank you,


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16276577
> 
> 
> 1. Can you do any custom sizes? I think I would prefer a 2.37 screen.



Sure, we do custom aspect ratios no problem. While 2.35 is the general size for "scope," we have customers who want 2.37 to perfectly align with their lens, or 2.4 for those who want to grab the widest normal aspect ratios.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16276577
> 
> 
> 2. How long before you use the newer material on your electric screens. I need a little more gain if I go with a larger screen.



Summer. I can't get more specific because it's waiting on a new screen product to be released. The increase in gain is minimal: from 1.16 to 1.2.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16276577
> 
> 
> 3. Any idea if you will add a masking option in the future?



We haven't started any development work on masking solutions for the retractable screens.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/16282593
> 
> 
> Sure, we do custom aspect ratios no problem. While 2.35 is the general size for "scope," we have customers who want 2.37 to perfectly align with their lens, or 2.4 for those who want to grab the widest normal aspect ratios.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summer. I can't get more specific because it's waiting on a new screen product to be released. The increase in gain is minimal: from 1.16 to 1.2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't started any development work on masking solutions for the retractable screens.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks for the info.


Can you give us a "hint" on the new product you are going to release? Should I wait?


----------



## dvcdude

Got my new retractable screen this week and finally installed it yesterday. First impressions out of the box were that this is a high quality product. Very good construction and packaging. The installation was quick and easy (with the help of my bodybuilder neighbor) and once I plugged it in I was ready to adjust the PJ and enjoy. The drop on the screen was exactly where I requested and required no adjustments at all. The colors came alive on the screen. It is a high quality product in every detail. I would expand more, but I want to get back to watching movies in pure bliss. Afterall, that is what this hobby is all about. Thanks Chris - I am very glad I found you on this forum and contacted you for my screen needs.


Dave


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16291028
> 
> 
> Should I wait?



Since you're interested in a retractable, no. Current work on those is just iterative improvement: more control options, larger 2.35 sizes, minor revisions, etc.


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/16300882
> 
> 
> Since you're interested in a retractable, no. Current work on those is just iterative improvement: more control options, larger 2.35 sizes, minor revisions, etc.



Chris, last question, I promise.


I held the screen material up away from my existing projector screen and could see quite a bit of light passing through. How much light is lost? Do you happen to know a percentage?


----------



## sonofdbn

A slightly odd question: how much does the XD material WEIGH? Is it like a cotton sheet? A vinyl shower curtain? Heavy curtain? I'm thinking about the frame for it.


(According to the forum rules, the DIY section is for non-commercial material, so I hope this is the right place for the question.)


----------



## Coolzone

Hey i have a sheet of the center stage XD 24" x 24" and it weighs 177 grams and the normal center stage same size weighs 193 grams


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16306389
> 
> 
> Chris, last question, I promise.
> 
> 
> I held the screen material up away from my existing projector screen and could see quite a bit of light passing through. How much light is lost? Do you happen to know a percentage?



I'll have to measure that. Of course some single-digit percentage will blow straight through the holes, but its overall opacity is also related to the thread thickness, thread opacity, and weave.


Most all unsupported vinyl screens have a back image as they are not opaque, but I don't remember putting the meter behind the fabric in a while. Other than testing to make sure the material's opacity is sufficient from in front of the screen, such as blocking reflections from flat panels with the black backing layer (good), or blocking light sources behind the screen such as incompletely closed windows (bad).


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonofdbn* /forum/post/16309921
> 
> 
> A slightly odd question: how much does the XD material WEIGH? Is it like a cotton sheet? A vinyl shower curtain? Heavy curtain? I'm thinking about the frame for it.
> 
> 
> (According to the forum rules, the DIY section is for non-commercial material, so I hope this is the right place for the question.)



I think Coolzone got it quantitatively. Qualitatively, it's more like a heavier weight shower curtain. Typically the weight of the material isn't that important compared to the amount of tension folks apply, or the the weight and sag of whatever you're making the frame from. Unless you're shipping it to Russia; then it's a very big deal.


I think limited DIY questions are ok here, as what folks find in their experiments often has applicability to our finished product. And, AVSers are detail addicts, so while I try to limit the DIY content here, I think folks have found the content worthwhile.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## sonofdbn

[Major brain spasm while computing metric and imperial units....] So let's say that we have a 96 inch x 48 inch piece of XD (yes, 2:1 but it makes the maths much easier) - that would be 8 pieces of 24x24, so about 1.6kg or 3.5 pounds - in case anyone is interested.


I'm not an engineer, but certainly the tension would seem to be a much bigger factor, as Chris says.


----------



## silverbullete55

Screen project complete. The following is a point form summary:


- Puchased AT screen material from Seymour for a 92" diag.

- FedEx messed up the initial order

- Chris sent replacement the same day once notified of the damaged product

- Recieved screen in great shape

- Pricing very reasonable

- For the frame structure, ordered extruded aluminum kit from Frame World

- Ordered a custom Frame World kit confirmed with CAD drawing

- Gave exact interior frame measurements at 45' X 80"

- Combined two extrusion

- First extrusion was a square 1.5" X 1.5"

- Second extrusion was a 45 degree angle 1.5" x 1.5"

- Square extrusion used as the outer frame

- Angled extrusion used as the inner frame providing for a bevel

- Outer frame and inner frame joined to provide for a 3.0" x 1.5" profile

- Extrusions come with smooth sides and rear was slotted

- Kit came with hardware and predrilled holes for assembly

- After assembly, wrapped outer profile with velvet using spray glue

- Left back of frame uncovered

- Frame was 100% square and strong as heck

- Ordered kit with T Clips to fit in slots in the back of frame

- Fastened screen material using T Clips and rubber mallet

- T Clip run the full lengths of the frame

- Used Hangman picture frame to hang


The screen material $300, custom frame kit $500, velvet $88, spray glue $12 (all in canadian dollars)...screen, picture and sound...priceless.


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *silverbullete55* /forum/post/16331613
> 
> 
> Screen project complete. The following is a point form summary:
> 
> 
> - Puchased AT screen material from Seymour for a 92" diag.
> 
> - FedEx messed up the initial order
> 
> - Chris sent replacement the same day once notified of the damaged product
> 
> - Recieved screen in great shape
> 
> - Pricing very reasonable
> 
> - For the frame structure, ordered extruded aluminum kit from Frame World
> 
> - Ordered a custom Frame World kit confirmed with CAD drawing
> 
> - Gave exact interior frame measurements at 45' X 80"
> 
> - Combined two extrusion
> 
> - First extrusion was a square 1.5" X 1.5"
> 
> - Second extrusion was a 45 degree angle 1.5" x 1.5"
> 
> - Square extrusion used as the outer frame
> 
> - Angled extrusion used as the inner frame providing for a bevel
> 
> - Outer frame and inner frame joined to provide for a 3.0" x 1.5" profile
> 
> - Extrusions come with smooth sides and rear was slotted
> 
> - Kit came with hardware and predrilled holes for assembly
> 
> - After assembly, wrapped outer profile with velvet using spray glue
> 
> - Left back of frame uncovered
> 
> - Frame was 100% square and strong as heck
> 
> - Ordered kit with T Clips to fit in slots in the back of frame
> 
> - Fastened screen material using T Clips and rubber mallet
> 
> - T Clip run the full lengths of the frame
> 
> - Used Hangman picture frame to hang
> 
> 
> The screen material $300, custom frame kit $500, velvet $88, spray glue $12 (all in canadian dollars)...screen, picture and sound...priceless.



Pics, we need pics.


----------



## silverbullete55

Sorry, no pictures. The finished product looks a performs like it should...a high end screen. I can elect to change the screen material at any time as technology increases. The reason I did not take pictures is that a. I was not planning on sharing the build and b. It was so simple to put together, even I could do it. The only PITA was gluing the velvet. BTW, Sony VW60, Pioneer Elite AR 7.1 and BRay and Paradigms all around. Do it...aluminum frame is great...same as others costing $$$ more.


----------



## squirrel101

i used the center stage material with a JVC hd350 and screen is 52x122 and is perfect and can't see any weave even @ about 2ft. and hardly any tilt







i could'nt be happier


----------



## sonofdbn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *silverbullete55* /forum/post/16331613
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> - Ordered kit with T Clips to fit in slots in the back of frame
> 
> - Fastened screen material using T Clips and rubber mallet
> 
> - T Clip run the full lengths of the frame
> 
> ...



Could you describe the T Clips? I can't seem to find them in the Frame World catalogues.


----------



## silverbullete55

They are actually call T-Slot Covers found on page 197... Used the EX 61 and EX7 extrusions.


----------



## dleto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *silverbullete55* /forum/post/16335214
> 
> 
> They are actually call T-Slot Covers found on page 197... Used the EX 61 and EX7 extrusions.



Sweet, Nice find.

Did you have the corners cut at 45 degrees?

Any center supports?

You just made my screen choice very easy.

Thanks for posting the info.


----------



## oman321

We would still like to see images of the finished product if possible, including the backside.


I previously thought about making a frame out of the extruded alum but I since I wanted a curved screen it kind of made it impratical at the time. I then came across some posting or a site that showed curved piece with more angle than one would have wanted, but it goes to show the possibilities.


----------



## silverbullete55

I had the inside EX 7 mitred at 45 degrees...I tried to have the outside also mitred, but for strength purposes, frame world would not do it. I will try to attach the PDF CAD drawing. If I take a picture of the front, it you will see a 92" dia screen with a 3" black velvet frame...the back is again pretty straight forward...all you will see is the screen material with the T- slots running along the whole perimeter. Chris' material fit just right...no cuting required. I will try to take some pictures if I can convince my wife to help me take down the frame.


----------



## sonofdbn

Was it easy to fit the screen material and the T-slot covers into the T-slots on the extrusions? Sorry, I don't have a sample of the material, so I don't know how thick it is.


Are you using the new XD or the Centre Stage?


Unfortunately I'm not in the USA, and I can get similar, but not exactly the same size, extrusions - hence the questions.


----------



## silverbullete55

Here is the CAD for the frame order. I had a couple of revision. 1. took off the end caps and 2. removed the mounting hardware and utilized a hangman picture hanger.

 

09-0326-A square smooth-series frame Model (1).pdf 199.369140625k . file


----------



## silverbullete55

I took a chance when I ordered the kit. The distributor here in Edmonton, Alberta Canada never encountered this type of application, but ensured it would work. The placement and fitting of the screen material was very straight forward. Start at the height side and ensure that the material is square. then pick a length rail and secure the corner. I cut the T-Slots in 1 - 3 foot length to facilitate the stretching and tightening of the material. To attach the matial, angle inthe T-Slot at one end with the material between T-Slot and extrusion slot. Use a rubber mallet and hammer in the T- Slot while keeping the T-Slot angled. Work and gently hammer every inch or two. The screen material is as tight as a drum. I used the Centre Stage material. If the I want to cange the material it will be very easy and painless as the T-Slots can be reused. I would suggest ording a couple of more lengths of the T-Slots as I cracked some understanding have to properly hammer them in. Contact Frame World as their distribution and dealer network is very vast. IMO , there is not a better DIY solution. The wood version on Chis' web site appeared great, but I wanted the frame to be constructed out of the same material as the high end screens without out a lot of pain. This solution provides for that. Everything can pre-cut to the exact measurements in three boxes...pick them up at the local dealer. All it took was unpacking the packages and assembly with your own allen key. Takes about 1.5 hours. Should take less, but burn time admiring the set up and gloating...very slick solutuion. Agian only PITA is spray gluing the velvet. If I were to do it agian I would take the assembled frame with out the screen material to uphostery shop, it would not take them lone to do it.


----------



## scottyb

Silver,

this needs to be in a thread of it's own in the "DIY screen forum".

This is a great method and I have mine being drawn as we speak.


Scott


----------



## silverbullete55

Sorry for hijacking the threat, but the primary reason for the post was to give high praise to SeymourAV and Chris in connection with the product and service...I someone would like to move the frame specific post to DYI...you are more than welcome...


----------



## scottyb

Silver,

I wasn't talking about hijacking, it's just such a good idea more people need to know about it.


scott


----------



## sonofdbn

Silver, did you attach the screen material to the front face of the extrusions or did you first fold it round? Here's a diagram of what I mean:










Was it A or B? I'd prefer to be able to do A, but I don't know if it would be smooth/taut enough. B seems like it would be smoother because the screen is tensioned over the straight line of the extrusion corner.


----------



## Briands




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonofdbn* /forum/post/16339246
> 
> 
> Silver, did you attach the screen material to the front face of the extrusions or did you first fold it round? Here's a diagram of what I mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it A or B? I'd prefer to be able to do A, but I don't know if it would be smooth/taut enough. B seems like it would be smoother because the screen is tensioned over the straight line of the extrusion corner.



I have been bouncing this around in my head too... trying to minimize the size of the flat frame (my screen is recessed) so I was thinking of wrapping the screen material over the frame instead of behind. This poses 2 potential problems. The first only applies if you will actually project onto the portion with the frame behind. The question is how will this impact the image with the frame filling the holes. The second issue is a problem of execution in the corners. There are a few writeups about how to manage corners on black velvet, but I've not seen anything on best practices for the screen material wrapping around a corner. Perhaps there is some process used for art canvas that would work.


----------



## silverbullete55

I made a mistake on my original posting, I used the EX-65 rather than the EX-61. As for how I attached the screen material, I elected to utilize C. none of the above. OK it was A but the screen material is behind the the frame when the projector image is as reflected above. I coverered the frame with black velvet to abosord any image reflection or bleeding. Furthermore, I joined the 45 degree EX-61 to the EX-65 as an inner frame to provide for a 45 degree angle into the screen surface. Looks very impressive with a 3.0" profile. One could elect to "wrap" the material for recessed appilcations. I would spray the extrusion with flat black. The outer corner may cause a problem, but with enough research it could be solved. You may end up with small 45 degree fold, but I think you are on the right track with the art canvas.


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *silverbullete55* /forum/post/16339711
> 
> 
> I made a mistake on my original posting, I used the EX-65 rather than the EX-61. As for how I attached the screen material, I elected to utilize C. none of the above. OK it was A but the screen material is behind the the frame when the projector image is as reflected above. I coverered the frame with black velvet to abosord any image reflection or bleeding. Furthermore, I joined the 45 degree EX-61 to the EX-65 as an inner frame to provide for a 45 degree angle into the screen surface. Looks very impressive with a 3.0" profile. One could elect to "wrap" the material for recessed appilcations. I would spray the extrusion with flat black. The outer corner may cause a problem, but with enough research it could be solved. You may end up with small 45 degree fold, but I think you are on the right track with the art canvas.



Silver,

How did you join the two frame pieces together? ie, the inner angle piece to the outside square piece?


Thanks,

scott


----------



## silverbullete55

Scott, Frame World supplied the hardware and drilled all counter sunk holes for $5.00 a hole. It was included in the $500 price for the kit. Fit perfectly square.


----------



## guamguam

I finished my centerstage XD screen about a week ago. There's several pictures and a description in my build thread as well as a couple of screenshots. I've still got to finish the front wall with black fabric.


Here's a shot of the screen after it was done and hung on the wall:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post16300955


----------



## mkanter




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mkanter* /forum/post/16059500
> 
> 
> Hey guys, I'm looking for help hooking the SeymourAV screen I'm about to get from Chris up to an Insteon switch so I can control it along with my lighting. I'd like to press the "Watch Movie" button and have the lights dim and the screen drop...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted over in the home automation forum, but thought I'd cross-post here for interest and in case any of you had suggestions. Thanks!
> 
> SeymourAV Screen Control w/ Insteon, Help Requested



Well, I've now got the screen installed but my wiring and control solution is a no-go so far.










I've posted a more detailed explanation in the home automation thread linked above. I don't think I understand the wires coming out of the 4-wire motor. Chris (or anyone) have any suggestions for me?


----------



## sonofdbn

In this post some figures were given comparing reflectivity and light opacity of Seymour AV Swiss Velvet and its black backing (BB) (as well as other materials).


Anyone have a picture of how the two look next to each other? I might place my LR speakers adjacent to the screen, rather than behind. If I hide them behind the Seymour AV BB, would the difference between the screen border and the BB be very noticeable or jarring?


----------



## Manni01

Hi everyone,


Thanks all contributors for the information in this thread which really helped me to make a decision. I have bought some XD Center Stage material from Chris (thanks again Chris for all your help) to replace the Carada BW material I had, and am extremely pleased with the result.


I have posted a mini-review here http://www.avforums.com/forums/home-...ml#post9423126 . My room (and screen) are very small by US standards, but there may be some useful information, and also a few pictures of the process. Feel free to ask questions here or there.


----------



## phansson

Hey Chris,


I sent you a message via your website. A couple of last questions before I order.


1. If you order a satin white case can you get a black batten?

2. If I order the 115" 2.37 screen, can I get an 8" left and right border instead of the standard 2"?

3. Are you using the XD material in your electric screens yet? The website says it is beta consult factory.


Thanks

Patrick


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mkanter* /forum/post/16376411
> 
> 
> Well, I've now got the screen installed but my wiring and control solution is a no-go so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a more detailed explanation in the home automation thread linked above. I don't think I understand the wires coming out of the 4-wire motor. Chris (or anyone) have any suggestions for me?



Hi Max -


Since you have a 4-wire motor, the basics are:

green wire: ground (yellow/green for the 230v folks)

white wire: common (blue for 230v)

black wire: screen down

red wire: screen up (brown for 230v)


It is a 210w motor, so make sure any switching device you use is rated for that. If you end up either needing just a wall switch, let me know and you can get a maintained 3-position. If you end up needing more control options, let me know and you can get the motor control box and control it any way you want.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16436431
> 
> 
> Hey Chris,
> 
> 
> I sent you a message via your website. A couple of last questions before I order.
> 
> 
> 1. If you order a satin white case can you get a black batten?
> 
> 2. If I order the 115" 2.37 screen, can I get an 8" left and right border instead of the standard 2"?
> 
> 3. Are you using the XD material in your electric screens yet? The website says it is beta consult factory.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Patrick



1. Yes, because the weight bar is rolled in 4" black velvet, black is the only color option for the batten.

2. This one is tougher. I could stitch on 4" black velvet along the sides, but they'd need to steer clear of the tension hardware on the bottom of the pipe. It would be unusual for us to do, but if it's critical we'll figure it out.

3. Only for select applications. Either wide scope screens, smaller than standard, where the customer has a real need (e.g. sitting closer than typical), and/or where the smooth screen type projectors are used (e.g. Panasonic, D-ILA/LCOS/SXRD)


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonofdbn* /forum/post/16420089
> 
> 
> In this post some figures were given comparing reflectivity and light opacity of Seymour AV Swiss Velvet and its black backing (BB) (as well as other materials).
> 
> 
> Anyone have a picture of how the two look next to each other? I might place my LR speakers adjacent to the screen, rather than behind. If I hide them behind the Seymour AV BB, would the difference between the screen border and the BB be very noticeable or jarring?



I'll see if I can snap a picture sometime, but if you need samples let me know. It really depends on how much light is expected to go through it from behind, vs. direct reflection absorption (e.g. overscan), vs. how much AT is needed. Our BB is not quite as dark as GoM, but is more acoustically transparent. How dark they are in comparison to a black velvet I'd say is noticeable, but I don't think jarring in a bad way. Another way you can get the effect is to try a really thin, cheap velvet. Some of them are so thin that they are quite acoustically transparent, but maintain some velvet look. If we focused on masking panels, I'd have direct options I could offer, but you're swimming in less familiar DIY waters.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Wider 2.35 (or custom variation thereof) ratio screens are now available. We added the 120" wide and 130" wide image sizes. I can't go that wide in the 16:9 ratios at this time because only so much material fits into the case, and images with that much height push the standard material too hard.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## hulkss

I took advantage of the Seymour AV screen upgrade policy and installed a new 115" wide, 2.35 aspect ratio, XD retractable screen. What a great product







Works perfectly with my panasonic PT-AE3000U projector (no tilt in the material micro hole pattern). The screen hangs almost perfectly flat.


----------



## chriscmore

The retractable screen manual was *WAY* overdue for updating. I finally got it finished up with a lot more photos and details about unpacking, installation, control and troubleshooting.

http://www.seymourav.com/articles/Ce...structions.pdf 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## jrm1504

So are the fixed mount screens still anticipated for release on the 15th? Are they going to use the new material???


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrm1504* /forum/post/16617714
> 
> 
> So are the fixed mount screens still anticipated for release on the 15th? Are they going to use the new material???



Yes and yes.


I'll have more photos and of course pricing up on the 15th. While the XD will be standard and available on all screens on the 15th, I'll need a bit more time to get it's new specs and pictures of the XD on the site.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## oman321

Looking foward to pics of your new screen. Congrats on moving foward with what I'm sure will be another fine product. Already recommended someone to look at it when it comes out the 15th. Good luck.


----------



## kitkat99

interested in the retractable screen. I called last week, spoke to chris, Is there a new screen fabric coming out, when? what was the difference? thanks


----------



## oman321

Just checked out your new fixed frame and also looked at the install instructions to see how it comes together. Very Nice!! Install seems as simple as it could possible get. The pricing seems very fair too, good luck on your new product.


----------



## Taz1

I was looking at them this morning. I like what I see.


----------



## will1383

Yes, they are very reasonable, indeed.


----------



## jrm1504

I want one...do you stock the sizes, or is there a delay while they are built to order?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kitkat99* /forum/post/16644214
> 
> 
> interested in the retractable screen. I called last week, spoke to chris, Is there a new screen fabric coming out, when? what was the difference? thanks



We got the first batch of our new Center Stage XD last winter, but in the 63" roll size it was (is) quite limited to nice wide scope screens. We now have in stock the 98" roll size Center Stage XD, so we can make any and all of our screens with the upgraded material.


I'm way behind updating the site for the XD pics/specs - it's high on the list to do - but in a nutshell it's our new weave where we:

1) tripled the hole density from ~500/sq.in. to 1500+/sq.in.

2) tweaked up the gain a tad to 1.2

3) improved the acoustical transparency +0.5dB from 2k-20kHz

4) much finer weave allows closer seating and an invisible texture at normal seating distances.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrm1504* /forum/post/16665437
> 
> 
> I want one...do you stock the sizes, or is there a delay while they are built to order?



We don't stock sizes, since everything is hand made to order here in Ames, IA. They take about a week to make, although I had a visitor at the end of the day yesterday pickup a fabric order and when he saw the new fixed frame screen he insisted that we make one for him right now. Jon lasted until about 12:30am and I sealed it up at 2am.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## amps

Will the wider XD fabric be available for DIY soon?


I'd like to build a 110" screen but after working in the tilt, I don't think it would work with the 63" fabric.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amps* /forum/post/16682254
> 
> 
> Will the wider XD fabric be available for DIY soon?
> 
> 
> I'd like to build a 110" screen but after working in the tilt, I don't think it would work with the 63" fabric.



The 98" wide XD is in, standard on all manufactured screens, and available for DIY.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## TomBonge

I really need you guys to help me decide, I just not convinced that a AT screen will look as good as a solid screen.


I just think way too much light passes though the screen and is lost. I also can't decide on 2.35 vs 16:9 but that's another issue. I got the XD sample, and it looks fine but it is really hard to judge from the small area and I am afraid that full screen it will not look the same. And now there is a new wider XD fabric with a slightly different weave.


Tell me how happy you are to convince me.


----------



## chriscmore

Tom -


If the letter size doesn't suit you (larger than most other companies send), you could get the $20 sample that is 24"x24". On 4 sq. ft. it's pretty easy to tell if you'll like it or not. Just make sure to put something dark behind the sample, as an AT screen over something white looks terrible.


Also, we offer 30 return guarantee on everything but cut DIY material orders. The most you'd be out is shipping, but again the 24x24 is even lower risk.


Finally, the upgrade policy enables you to upsize later in case you feel that you want more later on.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## sCiEnt

Chris,

I will be buying the backing and fabric from you and I already have the roller, I am just trying to work out the tensioning system before I decide on the material width. Can we have detailed pictures of the tab tensioned screen? I would like to see how its done for a DIY build. Thanks!


----------



## laugsbach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TomBonge* /forum/post/16683840
> 
> 
> I really need you guys to help me decide, I just not convinced that a AT screen will look as good as a solid screen.
> 
> 
> I just think way too much light passes though the screen and is lost. I also can't decide on 2.35 vs 16:9 but that's another issue. I got the XD sample, and it looks fine but it is really hard to judge from the small area and I am afraid that full screen it will not look the same. And now there is a new wider XD fabric with a slightly different weave.
> 
> 
> Tell me how happy you are to convince me.



Hi Tom,


I have the XD material on a 115" wide 2.35:1 DIY screen and I absolutely love it. I can not tell that the screen isn't "solid" until about 3-4 feet from the screen.


BTW, the picture, as well as the sound (L/C/R speakers behind the screen), is fabulous with my Panny 3000.


----------



## chriscmore

I put up a couple short video clips. First, while the o-ring tension system seems easy to install, in reality it actually is. The clip is here: O-ring installation 


Second, to demonstrate the robustness of the tension system, here's a clip of something you'd never try on other screens that use snaps, rods, t-trim, etc: Tension durability 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## KenLand

Hey everyone,


I'm looking at a 105" wide extended drop 16:9 electric.


My install is kind of tricky and I need some dimensions such as exactly where is the mounting rail located w.r.t. the bottom of the case.


I also need to know exactly where the screen drops out of the case front to back. (is it closer to the audience or closer to the wall?)


Anyone have these dimensions or maybe a closeup pic showing the underside of the case?

The installation guide doesn't seem to have much detail on this. I only know the case is 5.5"Deep x5.8"High.


Where along the 5.5" does the screen actually go in and out of the case and where along the 5.8 is the center of the mounting bar?


Thanks,

Ken


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KenLand* /forum/post/16689962
> 
> 
> Where along the 5.5" does the screen actually go in and out of the case and where along the 5.8 is the center of the mounting bar?



The standard method is that the screen unrolls from the back, or closer to the wall. There's only ~0.5" clearance from the bar to the wall. If you prefer that it unroll on the opposite/front side, we then need to do a reverse roll. That's no problem, but since the front of the case doesn't have a mounting feature, reverse rolls need to use their ceiling mount side to install.


The wall and ceiling mounting bar features in the extrusion are in the middle of each dimension.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## KenLand

Chris,


So I can't have it as this sketch shows?


Thanks


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KenLand* /forum/post/16697016
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> So I can't have it as this sketch shows?
> 
> 
> Thanks



No, the extruded aluminum doesn't allow for that. You show the mounting feature where the designed, curvy part of the case is. In hind sight, perhaps we should have nixed the design goal on the "front" and just put another french cleat mounting feature.


Other options include: 1) caseless screen, which you can mount in any orientation you want with the two end L-brackets, and 2) we can drill/tap threaded mounting holes on the ends of a case so that you can L-bracket it to the wall like you drew.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## tony123

Just placed my order (XD in 98"x180") and am very excited!!! Thanks for answering all my questions Chris.


----------



## sCiEnt

Hello Chris,

Anything on pictures of the tab tensioning system? (Only if you don't mind sharing them, of course)


----------



## airliner

Hi Cris, I bought some center stage from you almost one year ago and still did not use it. Do you think I can use it to replace a retractable screen of mine? If yes do you think is going to be difficult? Tks Marco


----------



## MarkDub

Not trying to be a "Debbie Downer" here, but I have to chime in after seeing posts about AT screen material looking the same as non AT with respect to visible smoothness. I have the XD material from Chris. Maybe it's because I have better than 20/20 vision, but I can definitely tell it's AT fabric, even at 10 feet. Now, let me be clear that it's not as though you see holes in the screen, but rather that in the absence of a projected image you can definitely tell it's AT fabric - I know, that does not matter, but my point is you can see the weave. I can detect a slight difference with projected images versus a smooth material, but it's tough to explain unless you've done a side by side comparison with a non-AT screen. It's not something you notice in a negative sense, but rather it's just slightly different when viewing very white or lighter uniform images. I used to have a Stewart, so that is my reference. In comparing the XD material in my current HT I only had an opportunity to A/B it versus some Da-lite high power material. I'm only pointing this out so those of you on the fence know what your getting.

So, what's the bottom line? I am THRILLED with the material. I'm using it with a Pio FPJ1 (JVC clone) and the image is phenomenal. I am also much more happy than I thought I would be about the difference in sound I have going now with the AT screen.

Back to the image itself, I don't really think I'm losing lumens in my setup with the XD. However, you MUST control light from behind the screen, and ideally this also means controlling reflection of light as well. i.e., you would not want anything light colored or shiny behind the screen. Black speakers, grilles, etc do not cause any problems.

I hope this helps some of you. Finally, Chris was a real pleasure to do business with...easy, prompt, and professional. I still can't believe how great my DIY screen turned out for a reasonable amount of time and money over what I've done in the past.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airliner* /forum/post/16735533
> 
> 
> Hi Cris, I bought some center stage from you almost one year ago and still did not use it. Do you think I can use it to replace a retractable screen of mine? If yes do you think is going to be difficult? Tks Marco



Marco - I don't really understand what you're after. email me and we'll figure things out.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Mark -


Yes, at 10 feet the weave is visible to expert eyes that know what they're looking for, hence our recommended 8 foot minimum viewing distance. We even showed the old material last year at CEDIA at a 8 foot viewing distance with great feedback. The XD is a much finer weave, so for those pushing the texture issue - those in the 8 to 10 foot range - it does very well.


The bad rap that AT screens get are primarily from several really bad AT fabrics out there, and too-close judgement of what they look like. For the XD, 8 feet is where a novice viewer would notice the weave, possilbly with guidance. At 10, you have to have acute vision and know what you're looking for. For the normal 2x2 weaves, add +2 feet to those figures. For microperf, 12 may be minimum and 15 starts looking nice. For standard perf, I'd guess about double that.


So if you're viewing 10' or closer and sound isn't an issue, sure, don't do AT. For those that sit further back and complain about AT materials, either they haven't seen a good material (again, there's some really embarassing stuff out there that I can't believe anyone actually shows at CEDIA), or aren't taking the whole A/V performance into account. Ask them why they have that crappy MTM laying on its side, near the floor.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## fteixeira

Chris,


Does Seymour AV sell the *black backing material* separately? I have a DIY project that could use some.


Thanks in advance,


fteixeira


----------



## tony123

Wanted to get back and say that my material arrived quicker than expected and in great shape. Got my Velvet material in from Seymours recommended source and it looks good as well.


Will be doing a DIY frame over the next several days. Image size plus or minus 168x71.5"


So as not to double post, please refer to my construction thread for photos and comments on the process of the frame build.


I'll post back here with my impressions of the final product.


----------



## MarkDub




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/16743142
> 
> 
> Mark -
> 
> 
> Yes, at 10 feet the weave is visible to expert eyes that know what they're looking for, hence our recommended 8 foot minimum viewing distance. We even showed the old material last year at CEDIA at a 8 foot viewing distance with great feedback. The XD is a much finer weave, so for those pushing the texture issue - those in the 8 to 10 foot range - it does very well.
> 
> 
> The bad rap that AT screens get are primarily from several really bad AT fabrics out there, and too-close judgement of what they look like. For the XD, 8 feet is where a novice viewer would notice the weave, possilbly with guidance. At 10, you have to have acute vision and know what you're looking for. For the normal 2x2 weaves, add +2 feet to those figures. For microperf, 12 may be minimum and 15 starts looking nice. For standard perf, I'd guess about double that.
> 
> 
> So if you're viewing 10' or closer and sound isn't an issue, sure, don't do AT. For those that sit further back and complain about AT materials, either they haven't seen a good material (again, there's some really embarassing stuff out there that I can't believe anyone actually shows at CEDIA), or aren't taking the whole A/V performance into account. Ask them why they have that crappy MTM laying on its side, near the floor.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Hi Chris - I hope my post was interpreted the right way...i.e., it's meant to be informative so that people know what they are getting into. I am THRILLED with the XD material! I would not hesitate to go that route again - great image performance and I just love how much more "immersive" my sound is with the L, R, and Center firing directly behind the screen.

Thanks again for your help with the DIY.


----------



## phansson

Hey Chris,


Is there anyway to use your remote control with a Harmony 1000 remote?


Would you be able to contact the company and see if they could add it to their equipment list?


Thanks


----------



## chriscmore

Hey Mark -


No worries, I understand your post. I was just stressing to the AT haters out there that 1) every AT material has a distance where it's holes/texture is completely invisible to any human eye, and 2) our new XD material brings this distance closer than almost any, with fewer tradeoffs and is a superbly well-balanced material for closeup, high-pixel density HT. Most AT materials' completely-invisible distance really isn't appropriate for residential use, as they are visible in the dozens of feet. Ours joins a tiny few that can be enjoyed even in the single-digit feet range.


BTW, on our fixed frame (and DIY recommendations), tilting does reduce any residual texture even in moire-free images. We still tilt it on the fixed frames, because when we get ~100lb of 360-degree springy tension, there's no downside other than our time and scrap costs. On the retractables, we're no longer doing the tilted cuts, so we can enjoy the flatness benefits and moire-resistance that the new XD weave brings.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16750013
> 
> 
> Hey Chris,
> 
> 
> Is there anyway to use your remote control with a Harmony 1000 remote?
> 
> 
> Would you be able to contact the company and see if they could add it to their equipment list?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Hey P-


Not with your RF-only motor. I'm always pushing my vendors (such as the speed and quietness boost on your Gen4), so perhaps in the future, but currently you'd need the 4-wire Gen4 motor and an external brain box.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Michael W.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MarkDub* /forum/post/16743013
> 
> 
> However, you MUST control light from behind the screen, and ideally this also means controlling reflection of light as well. i.e., you would not want anything light colored or shiny behind the screen.



A lot of buyers of the electric AT screens get them so that a plasma can be mounted on the wall for daytime use. The glass on the plasma is very reflective. Are you suggesting this shouldn't be done? I was under the impression from Chris that the black backing takes care of that issue.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael W.* /forum/post/16755915
> 
> 
> A lot of buyers of the electric AT screens get them so that a plasma can be mounted on the wall for daytime use. The glass on the plasma is very reflective. Are you suggesting this shouldn't be done? I was under the impression from Chris that the black backing takes care of that issue.



Mark's screen is a single layer, DIY fixed frame. Without the black backing layer, what he says is true. You need reasonably dark and nonreflective surfaces behind the screen. For the retractables we always use the black backing layer, and as you can see on our installs page there are many installations in front of plasmas, glass, etc. You still don't want light sources from behind the screen, such as an open window and even bright LEDs can get through, but it effectively cancels out reflections from the projector.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael W.* /forum/post/16755915
> 
> 
> A lot of buyers of the electric AT screens get them so that a plasma can be mounted on the wall for daytime use. The glass on the plasma is very reflective. Are you suggesting this shouldn't be done? I was under the impression from Chris that the black backing takes care of that issue.



The black backing takes care of 99% of the rear wall reflection issues, though I occasionally see a reflection from my Samsung LCD TV in brighter movie scenes. It's barely noticeable, but sometimes it is there. If you want to totally eliminate rear reflections from a TV behind the screen I recommend hanging a black cloth, velvet, fleece, etc., in front of your TV or other shiny surfaces. I did this before I upgraded to a Seymour screen with black backing, and it works very well. Just cut the cloth a little bigger than the TV, and put some velcro on the cloth and the top edge of the TV. I staple the velcro pieces to the cloth to get them to hold a little better.


----------



## Doug G

Ditto that. My retractable is mounted in front of my A/V center which has several very reflective surfaces, mainly the two glass doors on my equipment racks and the optional acrylic protective screen on the Elite RPTV. (I actually tried removing this recently now that the kids are all older to eliminate the reflections from the large picture window directly behind the primary viewing position but actually found it significantly decreased my contrast and black levels to the point the picture looked washed out, so back on it went!) You can see pics of my setup at the SeymourAV web site, they're the ones with NESN showing on the Elite in one shot. The protective screen from the Elite isn't an issue, but I've found that even with the black backing if you happen to be sitting at just the right angle the light from the lens will reflect off the very top of the glass door and become slightly visible during bright scenes. It doesn't affect the picture, you just may notice it is all. But this is an extreme example, the backing is very effective at blocking any other low to moderate reflections. I've actually been meaning to resolve this issue by adding a couple of those sticky window child shade strips to the tops of the glass doors on the outside to eliminate it. I've already cut out small strips and used these to dim the display outputs on many of my components that don't have a brightness control and it works really well! LEDs also need to be covered with black electrical tape (or duct tape which will reduce their brightness without completely covering them) to prevent them from being visible.


----------



## chriscmore

Doug recently upgraded from the original to the new XD material, which is slightly better with respect to bounce-through as well. Have you noticed any change in occasionally catching a reflection?


There are a lot of screens in front of reflective surfaces - even mirrors - so while this has yet to be an issue with any application, it's good sport for avsers to offer their most precise observations.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Doug G

Chris - I'll take note of this the next time I have the screen down. As you've indicated, if anything the performance in this regard has actually increased.


Regarding my comments above I just want to reiterate that the "reflection" I mentioned above, which is really direct light bounce from the projector lens off a rear glass surface, is an extreme situation. Its all about angle of incidence and angle of reflection in both the horizontal and vertical planes. In my case they _both_ happen to align (from the lens axis) for about a 6" strip of glass at the very top of my equipment rack doors. At average viewer eye height for a very specific seating position, the door is equidistant from the lens and the viewer, and the very top of the door is equidistant from the PJ lens (above) and the viewer's eyes. Even under these circumstances its really only an issue during intensely bright scenes where the light output from the PJ is very high.


Aside from this one particular anomaly which is very specific to my room, the black backing is very effective in completely eliminating normal off-axis reflections from glossy surfaces behind the screen just as its designed to do. This situation I described above is more akin to having a light source _behind_ the screen similar to really bright LEDs and in my experience _any_ material which isn't completely opaque will require some kind of mitigation under these circumstances.


Chris makes a top-notch product with customer service which is second to none. So far my experience with the new XD material has been great! I highly recommend the product if you need a retractable or fixed frame AT screen!


----------



## tony123

The screen is now built and we've watched several movies on it already!


The build process was relatively easy. Stapling the fabric was a bit scary, but went on well the first time. I had to have some faith in the recommended stapling pattern, as there were some wrinkles that didn't work themselves out until the end. Our screen is 14' long, so that had some of its own construction challenges that smaller screens will not have.


I'm not as technical as some on this forum, but I will simply say that moving from a solid screen material to the XD was a non issue. In a side by side you might find ever so slight of compromises, but without side by side you will not realize them.


As others have stated, the benifits of having the speakers placed correctly behind the screen are much larger than anticipated!


----------



## WormInfested

Just discovered this thread from reading something over at *************** which led me to the seymour av site then to here. The person's thread i read which had something that sparked my interest was this, "I ordered screen material from them and made my own manual rolldown screen for about $300" just what i want. his is a 126" DIY SeymourAV A.T. "Scope" screen according to his signature. the post was from 2007 so it's a bit old.


From what i'm reading here though no one has done a rollup diy with the xd material. am i wrong on that? Is it possible to do a cheap rollup thing. I have a rear proj 52" dlp that i want a screen to go in front of for evening. roll it up for daytime and drop it down for nighttime. from left tower speaker to right tower speaker is around 117" My center channel is on top the tv on a omnimount shelf. I'd rather leave it there with a screen in front if possible. if not i'll just drop the speaker down for night with a normal pull down. i sit back around 8 1/2 feet from the tv. I plan on buying the Sanyo PLV-Z3000 which i'm not sure if it is going to have that moire effect on the material or not.

So is it possible for a diy rollup with the center stage xd material in a 16:9 format?


----------



## sCiEnt

WormInfested,

Yes its totally possible to do a diy rollup on the XD. How fancy you want it to be depends entirely on you. There are some people who have made completely motorized screens from scratch, others who have substituted the material on cheap motorized screens and yet others who have build simple manual roll ups.


----------



## tony123

You will see the tv's reflections through the screen. You'll have to consider some solution to that, could be as simple as throwing a dark blanket over it.


----------



## WormInfested

Nice to know about the rollup solution. it's either this or a dalite screen. My curiousity is how does the simple manual rollup work. it would connect to the ceiling but how would i do that and how would i keep the screen totally flat when down?


----------



## Doug G

You sound like a perfect candidate for a SeymourAV retractable, then you don't have to worry about any of those issues. Chris makes an excellent product for a more than reasonable price. You should strongly consider one. I'm glad I went that route over the removable fixed-frame DIY I was considering.


If you do decide to DIY, those questions are best posed in that section, not this thread.


----------



## davdev

I haven't been able to go through this entire thread, but I was wondering if someone could answer a simple question:


When you order a fixed frame screen, does it come completely assembled? I have a realitivly small bulk head door with steep steps, and I don't think I could get a 50" tall screen through it. Does it come with some assembly required, like the Carada's do, and how easy is it to assemble?




EDIT: Nevermind, I found the installation instructions:
http://www.seymourav.com/articles/Ce...structions.pdf


----------



## ggallaway

Chris,


At what width do you start needing the two 18" hangers? trying to plan the build out for the false wall and wondering how to configure it.


g


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WormInfested* /forum/post/16784525
> 
> 
> Nice to know about the rollup solution. it's either this or a dalite screen. My curiousity is how does the simple manual rollup work. it would connect to the ceiling but how would i do that and how would i keep the screen totally flat when down?



I am the guy who made his own manual roll down screen. It worked pretty darned well, especially for the money. I have since graduated to one of Chris's electrics, which is no doubt much better, but I had a lot of fun making my own roll down and saved some money when my budget was tight.


You won't get any non-fixed screen perfectly flat, but you should be able to get it close enough to work. The best way to do this is to be sure you mount the screen material square on your roller, and then I sewed a very light "weight bar" to the bottom of the screen material. I used 1/4" pvc pipe.


My method for holding and tensioning the roller was to use plumbers strap lined with felt, wrap the strap around the roller, and tensioned with wing nut bolts. I am traveling this week, but could post a picture of the tensioning strap later and other construction photos later if I can find them.


----------



## emo777

is masking XD screen fixed screen in the works down the road?? Has anyone bought fixed frame from seymour and made there own side panels for masking??


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tony123* /forum/post/16782286
> 
> 
> You will see the tv's reflections through the screen. You'll have to consider some solution to that, could be as simple as throwing a dark blanket over it.



There are a many successful retractable installations with a tv behind the screen, where the black backing layer provides appropriate light opacity. If they're doing a single-layer screen, then yes, you'd need a blanket or something over the reflective bits.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ggallaway* /forum/post/16790492
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> At what width do you start needing the two 18" hangers? trying to plan the build out for the false wall and wondering how to configure it.
> 
> 
> g



Our standard is that screens 100" or wider get the two 18" hangers vs. the single 30" hanger for the smaller screens. If you need something unique, let me know as well.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *emo777* /forum/post/16823645
> 
> 
> is masking XD screen fixed screen in the works down the road?? Has anyone bought fixed frame from seymour and made there own side panels for masking??



Not formally, but the inner lip of the extrusion that meets the screen, as well as the springy tension system was designed for simple masking panels to hook into. After CEDIA I'll solidify the plans for what's next.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/16825013
> 
> 
> There are a many successful retractable installations with a tv behind the screen, where the black backing layer provides appropriate light opacity. If they're doing a single-layer screen, then yes, you'd need a blanket or something over the reflective bits.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Hey Chris,


I have your screen up and running. So far I have been very pleased. Still doing a lot of tweaking with my CIH setup.


As for reflections, I have a framed poster (plexiglas) on the wall behind my screen. I can see light reflecting through the screen at times. It isn't horrible, but it does happen. I do have the black layer backing also.


So far, you make a hell of a product for the price. Thanks for all of the help.


----------



## Jim1432

Group,

I just ordered a Seymour retactable F105 (2.35 to 1; 114.1" diag) with the center stage XD material. My RS2 clone (Pioneer) projector and older version Panamorph will need to be moved back as the old screen is much smaller and located on the back wall. The new screen will be mounted to the ceiling about 3' from the back wall. The Projector Central calculator recommended a throw distance between 12' 5" and 17'. Which is better for the most brightness? Also, what throw do you recommend to mininize the chance of moire? The screen top will be 21" from the top of the ceiling. My projector will be mounted to a Chief ceiling mount with no extentions.


Thanks,

Jim


----------



## Michael W.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jim1432* /forum/post/16842164
> 
> 
> Also, what throw do you recommend to mininize the chance of moire?



I don't think moire will be a problem with the XD material.


----------



## bmwracer3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael W.* /forum/post/16842617
> 
> 
> I don't think moire will be a problem with the XD material.



Depends on the projector. I have moire with my Mits 6500, and need to buy the wide material so I can angle it more.


----------



## chriscmore

Jim -


To get the most brightness as possible from your projector, you should use it at the short end of it's throw. In your case, perhaps not all the way at the 12' 5" limit - some projector optics are out of spec at the extreme ends - but something in the 13' range would be brightest.


Your RS2 clone/Pioneer does not have any moire issues, so you'll be fine. They, JVC, Sony, Panasonic, all have eliminated the inter-pixel gap. They look so smooth that they don't even look like digital. Throw distance has negligible effect on moire, so don't worry about that.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Jim1432

Thanks for all the comments.

Today I am re-arranging my speakers closer to the wall and testing the sound with 2 channel music. So far it sounds fine so the retractable screen will most likely be placed on the ceiling 3' from the back wall as originally planned. Once I am certain the sound is still good I will move the projector back to about 13' from the new screen location.


Hi Chris,

Thanks again for all your help. I'm really looking forward to installing your screen.



Best Regards,

Jim


----------



## Anthony A.

is anyone using the fixed screen with carada's horizontal masquerade system? i am going to use one of these and would like to know if a custom frame can be ordered to minimize the spacing between the masquerade and the screen frame. or, is diy with the material the best way to achieve this? i am afraid though of sagging and would like to know experiences after a year or two if the tensioning system sags in any way.


thanks.


----------



## oman321

The Centerstage material(also known as phifer 4500) or the new blend XD is very taut. It doesn't have much stretch at all if any. The only thing that will sag over will perhaps be your frame if it is made out of wood.


It depends on how your gonna build and attach your frame. I built mine into curved false wall and used clamps to support it at the top and bottom of the screen with the false wall. The served more than one purpose. It secures the screen, it makes for easy removal of the screen and also stretches the frame up and down and makes sure the material remains taut. Theres a link to my screen build thread below if you want to see some pics.


----------



## Anthony A.

thanks for the tip. i like the idea of the seymour velcro attached to the screen material. if memory serves me correct, this can still be ordered from seymour. have to re-read the post that outlines this. the only other way i can think (without having to make an actual frame for the screen), would be to use a tab tensioning system with a spline. this way, i can always take care of wrinkles if they present themselves.


----------



## chriscmore

Anthony -


The velcro perimeter can still be ordered. It's best purpose is for those screens where you need front-access, and the ability to remove the screen to get to the equipment. It's removability is obviously pretty slick. However, I don't like that it doesn't hold enough tension all around. Most folks can get it flat, but velcro doesn't really keep pulling laterally like other tension techniques do.


I do know of one AZ customer that bought the fixed frame Center Stage XD screen for use with Carada's new CIH masking system. I think the system is still in construction, but maybe he'll share with us his experience. Both products are very new, so there'll be more I'm sure...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Anthony A.

thanks for the response chris. i guess i should opt for a more solid mounting, especially with how obsessed i am with being able to adjust wrinkles. the problem is with a basement theater in canada, where seasons change so drastically that i know there will be times when i need to be able to readjust the tension.


my sole purpose is for the screen to be mounted as close to the carada masquerade as physically possible. on most setups, the screen ends up being 1.5-3" from the masquerade. it is only visible if you look at an extreme angle or up close, but i would like to make it less than 1" gap. looking at the carada website, they offer a screen to match their masquerade which is called the mms. it simply snaps into place and is the preferred method of using the masquerade with a carada screen. i was wondering if it would be at all possible to place a custom order of your xd screen material with metal snap rings installed by you so it would simply snapo into a masquerade. i realize it may be a lot of work, but i would pay for the custom order. what do you think... is it feasible?


----------



## pocoloco

For those that have emailed Chris... how long does it take for him to usually respond? I emailed him I think 4 days ago and no response yet.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony A.* /forum/post/16876998
> 
> 
> i was wondering if it would be at all possible to place a custom order of your xd screen material with metal snap rings installed by you so it would simply snapo into a masquerade. i realize it may be a lot of work, but i would pay for the custom order. what do you think... is it feasible?



Just read your post and I have emailed Chris with the exact same question. I have a carada criterion screen and I'm thinking about using the XD on the carada frame. I asked him if he could install the snaps onto the material so that when I get it, I can simply snap the XD right onto the carada frame. I'll post back if I hear something. I also asked Carada to offer an AT screen material so that current customers could swap out materials but I don't think they have any plans to do that soon.


----------



## bfisherjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/16880275
> 
> 
> For those that have emailed Chris... how long does it take for him to usually respond? I emailed him I think 4 days ago and no response yet.



Usually pretty quick - 1-2 days worst case. This week he hasn't responded yet to me either (asked him for update on my shipment) so maybe he's on vacation??


----------



## scottyb

Hi,

Chris is real busy now that they have a fixed frame version.

They've had lots of orders to fill for people that have been waiting for this screen. I'm sure he'll get back to you soon.


Scott


----------



## pocoloco

Thanks guys. I don't mind waiting, I was just curious what the expected wait time was. Hopefully he'll have good news for me. At the least, I'm hoping that he could give me a stretch factor in the x and y direction and I can install the snaps myself.


----------



## sonofdbn

SeymourAV also offers a grommet/eyelet version (which is what they use for their fixed frames). This might be a viable alternative if you're not absolutely tied to a snap solution, as it doesn't require exact positioning and retensioning should be easy. The downside is putting in the hooks/screws on the frame so that there is something for the loops to be attached to. Take a look at the video on the SeymourAV website; attaching the screen looks very easy.


With snaps you'd have to be very sure that the eyelets and snaps line up (and of course that they match in size).


----------



## pocoloco

Chris wrote me back...


Looks like he can't customize the XD with the snaps so I'd have to do that.


----------



## pocoloco

Unfortunately due to the way my screen wall is built, I can't do the grommets without reconfiguring the wall framing which is not something I want to do. I'd rather build a DIY frame at that point.


----------



## Anthony A.

i think the only other way (other than velcro), that will allow for a good way to fix wrinkles in the future would be what member "silverbullete55" used to build his screen. he used something called t slot covers found on post #431 of this thread. a diagram of how they work is in post #441. i think i may end up going that route and using scheme A, which will allow me to place the screen very close to the carada masquerade. all of this of course will be done, unless seymour releases their own horizontal masking system at cedia this year.


----------



## Jim1432

Group,

I just installed a Seymour center stage retractable screen (2.35 to one; 105" wide). The screen quality and workmanship greatly exceeded my expectations







. The customer service from Chris was second to none.


The install went relatively well but I have a few recommendations:

* Make sure the mounting track is level with no bowing. Place a level on the track to make sure no dips are made after you fasten the screws into solid wood. If needed shim out the track to make sure it is flat.

* Don't even think about installing by yourself. I tried and quickly realized it is virtually impossible and dangerous. The 10' long screen only weighs about 60 lbs but it seems much heavier due to its length. With a helper is it easy.


I moved my couch to about 12 feet from the screen and the picture looks great. After watching a few movies I will update with a more detailed review.


Thanks for a great product Chris!



Jim


----------



## mcallister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jim1432* /forum/post/16962723
> 
> 
> Group,
> 
> I just installed a Seymour center stage retractable screen (2.35 to one; 105" wide). The screen quality and workmanship greatly exceeded my expectations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . The customer service from Chris was second to none.
> 
> 
> The install went relatively well but I have a few recommendations:
> 
> * Make sure the mounting track is level with no bowing. Place a level on the track to make sure no dips are made after you fasten the screws into solid wood. If needed shim out the track to make sure it is flat.
> 
> * Don't even think about installing by yourself. I tried and quickly realized it is virtually impossible and dangerous. The 10' long screen only weighs about 60 lbs but it seems much heavier due to its length. With a helper is it easy.
> 
> 
> I moved my couch to about 12 feet from the screen and the picture looks great. After watching a few movies I will update with a more detailed review.
> 
> 
> Thanks for a great product Chris!
> 
> 
> 
> Jim



Congrats on your screen!! I ordered an electric a little over a week ago. Curious how long it took you to get yours?


Thanks!!


----------



## bfisherjr

I ordered one of his new fixed frame screens... hopefully installing it today! Took about 2 weeks for delivery.


----------



## mcallister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfisherjr* /forum/post/16965044
> 
> 
> I ordered one of his new fixed frame screens... hopefully installing it today! Took about 2 weeks for delivery.



thanks for the info and good luck with the install. Would love to see some pics.


----------



## Jim1432

Thanks!


My electric took about 2.5 weeks for delivery.



Jim


----------



## Jim1432

Below are links to before and after picts.
http://tinypic.com/r/2vmznvc/3 

http://tinypic.com/r/t5sosn/3 



Thanks!

Jim


----------



## chriscmore

Really nice setup, Jim. I always enjoy seeing where these installations go, since no two are the same and I never tire of seeing another array of speakers and wondering how they sound.


Are you able to raise the center channel up, or do you still use the smaller screen in the back?


Also, does the screen in the back create any splashback issues? We've had many screens drop in front of other screens (2.35 in front of 16:9 screens, or 16:9 in front of 4:3) and have had good feedback, but if the smaller screen is far enough back, I wonder if it can splash some residual light. You otherwise have great light control - it took me a second to find the case in the pic.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jim1432* /forum/post/16969417
> 
> 
> Below are links to before and after picts.
> http://tinypic.com/r/2vmznvc/3
> 
> http://tinypic.com/r/t5sosn/3
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jim



Very nice setup, I'll bet movies look and sound great in your room!


Mike


----------



## Jim1432

Thanks Chris and Mike,

The picture and sound is great.

The speakers are DIY with Supravox 8" field coil drivers in open baffle (run full range with music and crossed over at


----------



## Jim1432

These shots were taken at the same location in my home theater so it gives a good perspective of the new screen size increase.


Jim


----------



## gimmepilotwings

I read this entire thread this morning. I plan on purchasing a 2:35 or 2:37 120" - 140" fixed screen at the start of the new year. I was also intrigued by the discussion of 2 screens vs 1 screen + masking.


I thought that Seymour had masking panels for sale, is that not correct? I don't see anything on the Store page.


Also, I want my screen to cover as big of the wall as possible. 14' (building a false wall) I read in another post and Chris confirmed (would like another confirmation) that I can place my electronics partially or fully behind the screen/wall and a Harmony would be able to work through it.


----------



## gimmepilotwings

Yet another question. Do you get these screens and choose the gain that you want? I am narrowing down to a 3000U projector and a 130" screen 2.35/2.37. The projector calculator needs at least a 1.0 Gain but 1.2 looks preferred.


Thanks,


----------



## chriscmore

Hey pilot-in-training -


We don't yet have masking panels. Likely that project will start after we get back from CEDIA. They'd easily insert into our frames for those who already have ordered screens.


We focus on one screen material, the 1.2 gain Center Stage XD. With the exception of high ambient light environments, where any white screen takes a hit, it balances reflectivity, uniformity, purity, and air permeability exceedingly well. So, one material, one gain = that's it.










Cheers,

Chris


----------



## gimmepilotwings

Thanks chris for the reply. 1.2 Gain is what I am looking for. It works out.







You definitely have my business when it is screen time.


What was the discussion between Seymour panels and GOM panels, if you don't have masking panels yet? I guess that part confused me.


----------



## chriscmore

Since we sell material and support DIY builds, I was asked the difference in performance of our black backing acoustically transparent material vs. a commonly used black A.T. material, GoM. Uses include false walls, speaker covers, black backing (standard on our electrics, optional on the fixed frame, and occasionally used on DIY builds). The summary is that GoM is less reflective, but not as A.T.


----------



## gimmepilotwings




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17001383
> 
> 
> Since we sell material and support DIY builds, I was asked the difference in performance of our black backing acoustically transparent material vs. a commonly used black A.T. material, GoM. Uses include false walls, speaker covers, black backing (standard on our electrics, optional on the fixed frame, and occasionally used on DIY builds). The summary is that GoM is less reflective, but not as A.T.



Black backing vs. masking. Got it.


I hope the masking materials come to fruition. You have around 5-6 months to make it happen before my purchase.


----------



## R10KYJ

I am over the pond in the UK and am considering this material for use with a Pioneer DILA projector (RS2 clone). The problem I have, is that I am very limited on space, hence the reason I am considering an AT material. The maximum width for the screen would be (84") 215cm, but more likely to be around (80") 205cm. I will also only be sitting as little as 10ft from the screen.


Has anyone experimented with these sort of sizes/distances, and is moire going to be an issue?


Thanks for any help you can give....


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R10KYJ* /forum/post/17001859
> 
> 
> I am over the pond in the UK and am considering this material for use with a Pioneer DILA projector (RS2 clone). The problem I have, is that I am very limited on space, hence the reason I am considering an AT material. The maximum width for the screen would be (84") 215cm, but more likely to be around (80") 205cm. I will also only be sitting as little as 10ft from the screen.
> 
> 
> Has anyone experimented with these sort of sizes/distances, and is moire going to be an issue?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help you can give....



Your distances are fine. We are 9ft from the screen and can't see texture. With the new XD material you won't have moire issues.


Scott


----------



## bfisherjr

Sorry for the delay - I got everything installed last weekend (still tweaking and tuning). Here's a couple pictures. This is the Seymour Fixed Frame 130 (130" horizontal) in 2.37.


The picture on it is outstanding. You have to get so close to the screen to see the grain that you'd never want to sit there (3-4' or so).


The build of the screen is very well done. I like well engineered products and this is right up there. Very easy to assemble, very solid feeling, and looks beautiful when it's done. I love the method used to attach the screen to the frame. My wife was out of town when I installed it and she was really impressed when she came back to see it.


All in all - very pleased - definite two thumbs up for anyone considering purchasing.


(edit: speakers are Emotiva 6.2s for LCR (and 4 ERD-1s for surrounds); subwoofer is Elemental Designs A5-350 on it's side)


(sorry the pics aren't that professional, I need to take some real ones of the full installation)


----------



## simic

i like to chime in with my 2 cents also.


bought a 95" fixed frame.


construction is top notch. assembly is easy too. in fact, my wife helped out in doing the O rings as well.


The materials were well packed. The frame members were double boxed and wrapped in plenty of bubble wrap.


I live in a apartment and the humongous long box would'nt fit in the lift. The UPS guys were not so happy to carry it up via the stairs.










The picture was fabulous and the sound, well, to my untrained ears, I couldnt notice the difference. Maybe a tad softer which is easily overcome by boosting the center speakers up about 1 db or so.


----------



## chriscmore

I spent some time with the new Sencore and have some results of the Center Stage XD color testing.


Our Sencore OTC-1000 was calibrated at their facility against a Photo Research PR650 Spectra Colormeter (ID#73P650-1, SN 60940101). An Epson 7500UB that Epson sent us was calibrated to D65, x=.313 y=.329 on the 1931 CIE chart using a white reflectance standard target from NASA.


First, the Epson 7500UB was calibrated to the NASA reflectance target. Then, the target was replaced with the Center Stage XD screen material to measure what difference in color it had to the calibrated reference. The measured result shows a color value of x=.315, y=.333 or a color shift of x=+.002, y=+.004, dE=2.5. The resulting color temperature was 6345K. Delta RGB measured red +/-0.0%, green +/-0.0% and blue -2.9%.




















After CEDIA I'll run some more tests to look into repeatability, uniformity, etc.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Moggie

Hi Chris,


The new fixed frames looks great. Any plans to sell curved screens? It looks like the new extrusion could be roller bent although I know a lot of extrusion companies can also do this. If you did I'd purchase one in an instant


----------



## chriscmore

Hey Moggie -


Since there isn't any uniformity, brightness, or AT benefit to curving the XD material, it's not on the short list. It does correct for anamorphic distortion and generally looks cool, but I want to see where CEDIA is headed first.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Moggie

Chris, thanks for the reply. Anamorphic distortion correction and the wrap around coolness factor are my top two reasons together with the ability to push the screen backward a little further while keeping room behind the screen for corner base traps. Maybe it will have to be DIY for me then but the XD material does look good...


----------



## bfisherjr

I have one of the Fixed 130" screens and am using it with HTB's lens. There is a small amount of distortion - but it's really small. With testing screens up, I can see it - pincushion of around .5". I think my PJ/lens is back far enough that I'm not seeing too many problems.


Yes, there is a coolness to curved - but I'm glad I didn't go this route. The flat screen gives more seating area. If it was curved, I think I'd lose my outer seats some. When we get a full house - it's nice to have the flat screen.


----------



## KenLand

I'm getting close to being ready for my screen and have a question.


Rather than mounting a 115" wide retractable to a wall, I'll be mounting it to a "slide" that allows the screen to be hidden away when not in use. (over the top of the entertainment center out of view)


My question is about the beefiness of the DIN rail. Will I be able to mount the DIN rail directly to the slide's two L brackets or will I need to put a stiff board in between to simulate a wall?


Oh and will there be any delays in order fulfillment due to Cedia? And/or will there be any promotions around Cedia?










thanks,

Ken


----------



## mcfoo

You can download the mounting instructions. The DIN rail should be screwed to 6 or so joists or studs...


----------



## mjg100

I have been thinking about building an AT screen in my dedicated room. Chris has a sample of his screen material on it's way to me. I currently have a 106" Elunevision fixed frame screen. My idea is to make a frame slightly smaller than the frame for my existing screen and attach this frame to the back of my existing velvet covered frame. My existing frame will just be used to provide a black velver border. I will either build the frame out of wood and spline the screen in place or I will buy some "Tight Screen" framing to build the frame with. Should work very well.


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Ken -


For a traditional wall or ceiling, the DIN needs at least 3 load-bearing mounting points to hold the screen's appx 55 to 65 pound weight. Six screws are provided as ideal. Some folks mount the bar to other, more rigid framework such as articulated mounts or frames.


That said, we have two styles of mounts that serve the same function but are preferred for wall or ceiling mounting. The case has extrusions and screws for either one, but for wall mounting I prefer a flatter, lighter-duty DIN rail since it allows the case to contact the wall and more easily sit level. It's strong across the 1.38" dimension (what fits into the case slot), but not across the 0.3" dimension. In a wall mount situation, it acts like a french cleat, so all the loading is across the 1.38" and across the appx. 5.5" square thick-walled extruded case.


For ceiling mounts, or whenever someone is trying something a bit strange, I use a heavier duty DIN rail, which is 0.6" thick. I'd say as long as your "slide" is rigid, and you are able to engage the case (which is extremely rigid) then you should be fine without a bridge board. Just make sure to clarify with us that you want the heavier duty ceiling bar.


Brad from MN cut the heavy duty bar in half and mounted each half to articulated mounts. There's a pic of his install here: http://www.seymourav.com/installsretractable.asp 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## mjg100

Chris, If I am only placing a small center speaker behind the screen, do I still need to allow 2" of clearance? My speakers (RBH WM30 www.rbhsound.com/wm30.shtml ) have two 4" drivers, two 4" passive radiators and a silk dome tweeter. I will cross to the mains at 100Hz, so they will not be trying to play anything low. My room does not have a lot of depth, so I do not want to use any more space than I have to. I am hoping that I can place the screen 1" from the drivers. Please advise.


----------



## chriscmore

The 2" screen to speaker minimum distance spec is from the original material. The new Center Stage XD is more permeable (+0.5dB above 8kHz), allowing that minimum distance to shrink to 1". Even a 1", it's mostly only a technical issue - showing up in measurements, but inaudible - depending of course on the crossover frequency of what's being played behind the material. If it's crossed over to a sub (e.g. >80Hz), then it's not an issue. You can place the material as close to drivers as you are able.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## KenLand

Thanks Chris. I see in your pics the install with the Peerless articulating mount. Very similar to mine support wise.


I'm going to go ahead and mount a manual screen I have to test the setup. I had already added 5 pseudo studs, so should be more than fine.


Thanks,

Ken


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17132862
> 
> 
> The 2" screen to speaker minimum distance spec is from the original material. The new Center Stage XD is more permeable (+0.5dB above 8kHz), allowing that minimum distance to shrink to 1". Even a 1", it's mostly only a technical issue - showing up in measurements, but inaudible - depending of course on the crossover frequency of what's being played behind the material. If it's crossed over to a sub (e.g. >80Hz), then it's not an issue. You can place the material as close to drivers as you are able.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks, that is what I thought and hoped you would say.


----------



## Anthony A.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17132862
> 
> 
> The 2" screen to speaker minimum distance spec is from the original material. The new Center Stage XD is more permeable (+0.5dB above 8kHz), allowing that minimum distance to shrink to 1". Even a 1", it's mostly only a technical issue - showing up in measurements, but inaudible - depending of course on the crossover frequency of what's being played behind the material. If it's crossed over to a sub (e.g. >80Hz), then it's not an issue. You can place the material as close to drivers as you are able.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



chris, is there any advantage to having the speakers farther away from the screen... say 6 to 8 inches instead of 1" or 2"? i can't remember if it was this thread where you (or someone) measured speaker distances. the speakers im going to use are klipsch 650 thx lcr's. thanks.


----------



## chriscmore

Anthony -


The comb filtering through the screen can be measured using 1/24 octave resolution in the 10-20kHz range, which isn't audible but can at least indicate what's going on. We can only resolve 1/3 to 1/6 octave combing, and being in the top octave of frequencies is especially inaudible (unless it's moving around). The 1/24 octave measurements show that the closer the speaker is to the material, the combing bands widen and shift down in frequency, both of which make it more audible. The reality check is that when you smooth it to 1/3 or 1/6 resolution, even at 1" the comb filtering effect no longer shows up (i.e. inaudible).


At greater 6-8" distances, at a 1/24 octave resolution the combing bands narrow and shift up in frequency, which would be less audible. Again, in the more realistic check of audibility, at 1/3 or 1/6 octave resolution, there isn't comb filtering to improve upon.


Therefore, for an RTA, sure, space it further. For hearing capabilities, it makes no difference.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## thenewguy11

I wanted to publicly say how impressed I am by Chris and SeymourAV for putting together a very nice screen at a great price. And, importantly, providing extremely responsive customer service as I bombarded him with questions as I debated the DIY vs. made to order path. I went back and forth on saving money and putting together a wooden framed screen with the Seymour CenterStage material, or buying one of the Seymour fixed screens. My lack of handiness (or laziness, call it what you will) won out and I'm glad it did because there is no way I could have produced the quality of screen that I received.


And its just in time for football season.


----------



## firebrick

SOB Chris! The only reason I didnt go with a seymour is I didnt want to build a frame. Now I still want to go AT but bought a carada bw screen and frame last year!!! oh well, anyone wanna buy a nice 120" screen???


----------



## oman321

Easy enough to post here on avs ads.


----------



## firebrick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oman321* /forum/post/17153931
> 
> 
> Easy enough to post here on avs ads.



true but how do you tell the wife. Oh hey honey im selling my screen so I can buy another one just like it but better!


----------



## mjg100

My current screen is a106" (16/9) Elunevision screen. Specs said it was 1.3 gain. I received the sample of XD Center Stage material from Chris. Chris sent it out the day we spoke. Thanks Chris. My projector is a 720P DLP (Planar PD7130). Viewing distance is 10'-9". I tested the sample by taping it to my screen. here is what I found:


Gain is very close between the two. The Elunevision screen was a tiny bit brighter only on a white scene. On darker scenes they both looked the same. The XD Center Stage material showed more texture, but once again only on a white scene. Based on video alone I would stay with the Elunevision screen, but that is leaving out half of the HT experience. I tested the audio by simply moving the center speaker from horizontal below the screen to vertically in front of the screen. In this test the center speaker is not behind any screen material. I will have to say that you can tell a difference between the two. it sounded better with the center speaker vertically placed in the middle of the screen. Now I have to decide if it sounds $300 better because that it what it will cost me to DIY using my existing frame. Decisions, decisions.


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *firebrick* /forum/post/17154973
> 
> 
> true but how do you tell the wife. Oh hey honey im selling my screen so I can buy another one just like it but better!



You might try mjg's idea and simply replace the fabric on your Carada frame. That should be an easier sell.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/17155810
> 
> 
> You might try mjg's idea and simply replace the fabric on your Carada frame. That should be an easier sell.



I am going to make a simple wood frame with a grove in the face of the frame. Wood frame will be strutted at third points. Then I will use some screen bead to attach the screen to the wood frame. If you have ever beaded screen before, you know that it can pull the fabric nice and tight. I will then screw the wood frame to the Elunevision frame. Wood frame will be made smaller than the Elunvision frame so that the XD material will be held tight to the inside portion of the Elunevision frame. Should make for a simple install.


----------



## oman321

If you want to skip making grooves in the wood and still use screen spline check out my DIY screen build on my signature. I used screen track available at HD or Lowes attached to my wood frame to spline the screen. Worked like a charm.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oman321* /forum/post/17156741
> 
> 
> If you want to skip making grooves in the wood and still use screen spline check out my DIY screen build on my signature. I used screen track available at HD or Lowes attached to my wood frame to spline the screen. Worked like a charm.



I did think about using those and I looked at them at our local Lowe's store ($3.68 for 8' piece). If I attach the plastic strips directly to the back side of the frame, the screen would be held about 1/4" away from the back side of the frame. I want my screen held tight to my velvet frame. Maybe I am being anal about this. Do you have a 1/4" space between your screen and the frame? If so how does it look when viewing? Do you even notice the gap? I can build it for free out of wood, but it would be lighter and thinner made using the track.


Added:

I just looked at your build thread (nice screen) The gap that I was talking about was probably filled in on your build when you wrapped your frame with velvet.


----------



## oman321

Thanks, no noticeable gap from the border and the screen material. At worst you can try it your way and if it doesn't work out then get the tracks.


Good luck, post some pics when your done.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oman321* /forum/post/17159817
> 
> 
> Thanks, no noticeable gap from the border and the screen material. At worst you can try it your way and if it doesn't work out then get the tracks.
> 
> 
> Good luck, post some pics when your done.



My way will work. I have installed a lot of screen bead. In fact my screened in porch at my house is made the old fashioned way, Sawed grooves, back primed the boards along with the grooves and then installed. This year alone, I installed new screens in my parents screened in porch and I also installed new screens in our Lani in Florida.


----------



## mjg100

I just sent an email to Chris to place an order for Center Stage XD. I ordered 10LF of 98" material to use on my 106" 16 9 frame.


----------



## Ericglo

I met the Seymour guys at Cedia. I was impressed with their screen. I don't think it is as good as the new SMX screen, but it is definitely better than the Stewart. If you are going the DIY route or want a less expensive at screen, then this is definitely worth checking out.


They are also coming out with a new retractable mechanism on their electric screen, but I will let Chris talk about it.


----------



## KenLand

New mechanism? I just put in my order Thursday and no new mechanism was mentioned.










What's new?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KenLand* /forum/post/17169668
> 
> 
> New mechanism? I just put in my order Thursday and no new mechanism was mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's new?



Just discussing ideas with Eric. Nothing on the near term as of yet. When I get back and discuss with the others, we'll decide what project to start next.


It was really great meeting and/or seeing again all the AVSers. Great folks all around...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oman321* /forum/post/17156741
> 
> 
> If you want to skip making grooves in the wood and still use screen spline check out my DIY screen build on my signature. I used screen track available at HD or Lowes attached to my wood frame to spline the screen. Worked like a charm.



I pulled my old screen down today and removed one side of the screen from the frame so that I could see the back of the frame. The frame has an 1/8" recess on the back side. Because of this recess it looks like the Screen Tight system will work well for me. What size screen bead did you use? I will review your install to see if it is listed. Does the bead that you used hold real tight?


Added:

I plan on using the cap and that should push the screen tight to the back of the frame.


----------



## oman321

Unfortunately I did fail to make note of the bead size that I used. When I was buying the track I simply tried to fit a couple of different sizes in and picked the one that fit snuggly considering that I had to contend with material thicker than the plastic bag the bead comes in.


The bead definately holds the screen tight. I had a little bit of trouble getting it going at first, but once it was it wasn't bad at all.


----------



## Ericglo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17174286
> 
> 
> Just discussing ideas with Eric. Nothing on the near term as of yet. When I get back and discuss with the others, we'll decide what project to start next.
> 
> 
> It was really great meeting and/or seeing again all the AVSers. Great folks all around...
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Chris,

Sorry if I let the cat out of the bag. I thought your ideas were very innovative. I think when you do release them people will be impressed.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oman321* /forum/post/17183844
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I did fail to make note of the bead size that I used. When I was buying the track I simply tried to fit a couple of different sizes in and picked the one that fit snuggly considering that I had to contend with material thicker than the plastic bag the bead comes in.
> 
> 
> The bead definately holds the screen tight. I had a little bit of trouble getting it going at first, but once it was it wasn't bad at all.



I have a screen sample and I have a couple sizes of bead here at the house. I will take them to Lowe's and try them for fit. Once you get the bead started, stretch the bead a little bit and it makes it go in a lot easier. My material is scheduled for delivery this Thursday.


----------



## Michael W.

Sheesh! I didn't know Chris was a robot! What is this world coming to?










I just received my screen....


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael W.* /forum/post/17188527
> 
> 
> Sheesh! I didn't know Chris was a robot! What is this world coming to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just received my screen....



The fabric is made for Chris (to his specifications I assume) by a company like (probably) Phifer.


----------



## oman321




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17187547
> 
> 
> I have a screen sample and I have a couple sizes of bead here at the house. I will take them to Lowe's and try them for fit. Once you get the bead started, stretch the bead a little bit and it makes it go in a lot easier. My material is scheduled for delivery this Thursday.



Looking foward to seeing your results.


Question, what's your best way of cutting in the grooves in the wood when you are making your home made screens? I am getting ready to start making my wall panels for the rest of my room and I was thinking of attempting a ribbed design with the bead I. The lower panels will be black so I am hoping the bead will dissapear into the groove and won't be noticeable.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oman321* /forum/post/17189484
> 
> 
> Looking foward to seeing your results.
> 
> 
> Question, what's your best way of cutting in the grooves in the wood when you are making your home made screens? I am getting ready to start making my wall panels for the rest of my room and I was thinking of attempting a ribbed design with the bead I. The lower panels will be black so I am hoping the bead will dissapear into the groove and won't be noticeable.



I just used the carbide tipped saw blade on the table saw. Gives about an 1/8" wide grove. I used that on my screened in porch and on my fathers screened in porch. The Lani in Florida uses a ready made screening system.


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17174286
> 
> 
> Just discussing ideas with Eric. Nothing on the near term as of yet. When I get back and discuss with the others, we'll decide what project to start next.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Chris,


Have you had any discussion about recessed-in-ceiling mounting systems? When I get my screen, that will be how I install it. I have a pretty good strategy. But a pre-engineered Seymour-AV solution would certainly be easier.


~Ken


----------



## Michael W.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/17193106
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Have you had any discussion about recessed-in-ceiling mounting systems? When I get my screen, that will be how I install it. I have a pretty good strategy. But a pre-engineered Seymour-AV solution would certainly be easier.
> 
> 
> ~Ken



Ken,


I am going to do a recessed mount as well. Can you share what your strategy is?


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael W.* /forum/post/17194295
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> 
> I am going to do a recessed mount as well. Can you share what your strategy is?



I am not Ken, but I have done several recessed mounts. My brother wanted one. My brother converted his living room over to an HT room. The room is located on the first floor of a 2 story house. Since the room above the living room was carpeted I told my brother that the best way would be to remove the floor above. Real easy. Pull back the carpet & pad and cut the subfloor out next to or on top of two joists. He then built a box to house his screen. He left the top of the box off so that the screen could be installed after the box. Cut a 1" channel in the ceiling and installed "J" molding in the opening. Installed the box to blocking added to the joist and then mounted the screen in the box. Screwed subfloor back into place and then put back pad and carpet. He built the box and I let him cut out the slot in the plaster. I gave him the mess part of the job.










Looks great from below. The bottom pole on the screen fills in the opening and only the wire loop on the bottom of the screen sticks through the ceiling. I have installed and seen several in ceiling screens that go in from below. None of them (that I have seen) look as good as this simple method and it was far cheaper. Screen is a 106" DaLite High Power manual. If you use a powered screen you would not even have a wire loop sticking down.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/17193106
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Have you had any discussion about recessed-in-ceiling mounting systems? When I get my screen, that will be how I install it. I have a pretty good strategy. But a pre-engineered Seymour-AV solution would certainly be easier.
> 
> 
> ~Ken



Hi Ken -


A flush-mount kit and trap door system is a project that's on the list, but not yet started. What folks are doing successfully is mount the screen up in the joists, typically using the "wall" mounting side, and then trim out the slot for the screen to drop through. It typically measures about 2" deep and however wide is needed plus some for tolerances and movement. The couple points I try to always make are to 1) make it removable for service entry, and 2) trim it out after the screen is installed. It's much harder to nail the dimensions until you see how the screen drops.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Doug G

I would love to have done a flush in-ceiling mount like this, but alas my joists above the room run parallel to the viewing direction so it was a no go. I think this is actually a good thing because then I would have been tempted to drop the $3k on one of those drop-down PJ mounts for the perfect "stealth" theater and that would have had _extremely_ low WAF!


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael W.* /forum/post/17194295
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> 
> I am going to do a recessed mount as well. Can you share what your strategy is?



Well,







it involves kit-bashing part of a competitor's trim system. So I don't want to embarrass anyone by detailing it here.


And it doesn't have a trap door. So I'd definitely rather have Chris's eventual solution, if it comes out before I finish saving all of my pennies.


~Ken


----------



## mjg100

Received my material today. Fedex just set it in my garage. My wife and I were both home. Fedex did not even ring the door bell. One end of the tube was missing and the fabric was sticking out 8" Luckily the plastic wrapped around the screen material was still in place to protect the screen. I pulled my existing screen down, removed the fabric, installed Screen Tight (1-1/2") strips, beaded the material in place and snapped Screen Tight covers over the strips to lock every thing in place. I did not take a lot of pictures, but here are a few I took during the process.
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/f...m/IMGP0567.jpg 
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/f...m/IMGP0568.jpg 
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/f...m/IMGP0569.jpg 
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/f...m/IMGP0570.jpg 
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/f...m/IMGP0571.jpg 
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/f...m/IMGP0573.jpg 


Do not judge the screen from my picture taking ability. Screen looks very good. Very happy with the results. Love having the center speaker in the correct location. Thanks Chris for not forgetting your roots and still catering to the DIY crowd.


----------



## crabra

Got my center stage material. Which side is the viewing side. I think it's the rougher side if you call it that. The side with more detail to it?


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *crabra* /forum/post/17246937
> 
> 
> Got my center stage material. Which side is the viewing side. I think it's the rougher side if you call it that. The side with more detail to it?



Both sides are the same. from what I read on Chris's site the inside of the roll has been inspected for blemishes.


----------



## crabra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17248547
> 
> 
> Both sides are the same. from what I read on Chris's site the inside of the roll has been inspected for blemishes.



The two sides don't look the same to me, but maybe that's me. What side did you use?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17248547
> 
> 
> Both sides are the same. from what I read on Chris's site the inside of the roll has been inspected for blemishes.



The sides don't look exactly the same but they measure identically. You're correct that we put the viewing side on the inside of the roll both for protection and so we can inspect it.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## mjg100

Deleted. Chris answered while I was getting the link.


----------



## Anthony A.

chris, just sent you a pm in regards to pricing. thanks.


----------



## chriscmore

No habla pricing...


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael W.* /forum/post/17188527
> 
> 
> Sheesh! I didn't know Chris was a robot! What is this world coming to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just received my screen....



Hi Michael -


Hope you enjoyed that. I put a lot of little stuff out to at least amuse myself, which is typically all that it's good for.


I decided not to put those stickers on the screens we're exporting *to* China. Especially after watching "Lost in Translation" for the 20th time (wifey's favorite), I think I'd get more confused responses than I get from friends.


BTW, I have the pics for the manual limits adjust. Rev'ing the manual is on the list and I'll get to it soon when I get some air. Of course you can call anytime if you need...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Milt99

Upgrading my pj and decided to order the XD fabric today from Chris for my 96" 16:9 screen.

I was in on the initial order of what was to become the SMX fabric a little

over 3 years ago.

I'm thankful that we still have an excellent DIY resource for AT fabric.

What Carada is for non-AT, Seymour is for the AT guys.

Affordable excellence.

I guess I'm praising the product before I have it but I've got a good feeling about it.

I like it when I can call a company and talk to the owner.

My first screen was a Carada bought in 2003 same deal there.

I'll post pics when I get it all configured.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/17322928
> 
> 
> Upgrading my pj and decided to order the XD fabric today from Chris for my 96" 16:9 screen.
> 
> I was in on the initial order of what was to become the SMX fabric a little
> 
> over 3 years ago.
> *I'm thankful that we still have an excellent DIY resource for AT fabric.
> 
> What Carada is for non-AT, Seymour is for the AT guys.
> 
> Affordable excellence.
> 
> I guess I'm praising the product before I have it but I've got a good feeling about it.* I like it when I can call a company and talk to the owner.
> 
> My first screen was a Carada bought in 2003 same deal there.
> 
> I'll post pics when I get it all configured.



Milt, I have to say as a long satisfied SeymourAV screen customer, you are correct, they do make an awesome screen at a great price.


----------



## chriscmore

Mike - When you come up for next year's expo, you should bring your screen up and we'll have an update-Mike's-screen/build party. Iowa doesn't get much more exciting that that...


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17328269
> 
> 
> Mike - When you come up for next year's expo, you should bring your screen up and we'll have an update-Mike's-screen/build party. Iowa doesn't get much more exciting that that...



Chris, I was actually thinking about that recently, and it's a great idea. Nothing like a few days of pork BBQ topped off by visiting good friends and an HT upgrade! Might even bring my wife this year?


----------



## Milt99

Question I should've asked Chris when I ordered my screen this past week:

I'm coming for an SMX screen and have never used a black backing.

The stage area behind my screen is totally covered with black insulshield and the stage "floor" is painted flat black.

Does this have a noticeable impact on contrast?

I'm leery of putting anything else between the center channel and the screen but I have an Anthem D2 with ARC so I guess it should compensate for the additional drop in dbs.


----------



## scottyb

Milt,

If everything behind the screen is black you won't need the black backing.


Scott


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/17338096
> 
> 
> Milt,
> 
> If everything behind the screen is black you won't need the black backing.
> 
> 
> Scott



Agreed. As long as the surfaces are reasonably dark and nonreflective, you won't need the black backing. About 90% of fixed frame screens don't need it.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Milt99

Thanks guys.

Yeah everything behind the screen is dead flat black.


----------



## mrlittlejeans

I got 12' of 98" wide XD material today. The stuff looks much better than Phifer 4500. I had to strain to make out the holes. The weave is much tighter. Now to build my new screen tonight.


----------



## bob53

Has anyone placed their own grommets on the center stage material? I like the idea of DIY as I need to build my own frame but I like the method Chris employs in the fixed frame products. Chris - can one easily place their own grommets or will this mess up the weave?


----------



## scottyb

Hey Bob,


Chris can palce the grommets where you need them.


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17382707
> 
> 
> I got 12' of 98" wide XD material today. The stuff looks much better than Phifer 4500. I had to strain to make out the holes. The weave is much tighter. Now to build my new screen tonight.



mrlittlejeans,

Please post your impressions when you've had time to evaluate your new screen.

Thanks!


----------



## mrlittlejeans

will do. i've got the new frame built and will staple tomorrow wife willing...


----------



## Milt99

I got my XD material mounted and stretched onto my aluminum frame yesterday.

I'm viewing with a RS2 projector, ceiling mounted about 15 feet from a 96" diagonal screen.

It was much more time consuming to get a wrinkle free stretch with the XD than with the original SMX material.

I think this is because the XD is cut on a bias and the material has a far finer, more complex weave and isn't as "directional' and stiff as the SMX.

By directional I mean that the SMX fibers are at right angles to each other and they are larger in diameter than the XD material.

I mounted the SMX over 3 years ago so my exact recollection may be a bit faulty but I know I didn't spend as much time getting it right.


The PQ results were immediate and obvious to me.

Much better PQ and a little brighter as well.

I'm sure the brightness increase is due to the finer weave of the XD.

I looked at the wall behind the screen wall while a movie was playing and the bleed through on the XD is about 25% of what the SMX was.

I remember when I originally installed the SMX, I was a bit taken aback at how much information was "playing" on the back wall.


As far as SQ goes, I did not noticed any degradation in SQ. In fact, some of the dialog sounded a bit better.

I will re-calibrate my ARC software tomorrow as I want to get this thing dialed in.


So far, I am very happy with the results. The improvement in PQ alone is worth it.


----------



## crabra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/17409115
> 
> 
> I got my XD material mounted and stretched onto my aluminum frame yesterday.
> 
> I'm viewing with a RS2 projector, ceiling mounted about 15 feet from a 96" diagonal screen.
> 
> It was much more time consuming to get a wrinkle free stretch with the XD than with the original SMX material.
> 
> I think this is because the XD is cut on a bias and the material has a far finer, more complex weave and isn't as "directional' and stiff as the SMX.
> 
> By directional I mean that the SMX fibers are at right angles to each other and they are larger in diameter than the XD material.
> 
> I mounted the SMX over 3 years ago so my exact recollection may be a bit faulty but I know I didn't spend as much time getting it right.
> 
> 
> The PQ results were immediate and obvious to me.
> 
> Much better PQ and a little brighter as well.
> 
> I'm sure the brightness increase is due to the finer weave of the XD.
> 
> I looked at the wall behind the screen wall while a movie was playing and the bleed through on the XD is about 25% of what the SMX was.
> 
> I remember when I originally installed the SMX, I was a bit taken aback at how much information was "playing" on the back wall.
> 
> 
> As far as SQ goes, I did not noticed any degradation in SQ. In fact, some of the dialog sounded a bit better.
> 
> I will re-calibrate my ARC software tomorrow as I want to get this thing dialed in.
> 
> 
> So far, I am very happy with the results. The improvement in PQ alone is worth it.



So was the SMX you were using the 1st gen material that Ruben used (shearweave 4500)? I have some of the last DIY SMX that was released about 2 and a bit years ago and still don't have it up so I don't know if it's the same as yours.

I also have some XD material for a second room so it will be interesting to compare. The XD is certainly whiter looking and a better looking material I think. If it turns out to be better than the SMX I guess I will scrap the SMX and order more XD.


----------



## Milt99

Yup, the SMX was the original stuff.

I was in on the initial order that Ruben sent out.

The XD is superior. Not surprising.

Just looking at the 2 materials gives a pretty good idea of the difference.


Gee, I wonder what happened to mrlittlejeans....

Got to go, just came up to freshen my drink while watching OOTP.


----------



## scottyb

What is OOTP?


SB


----------



## Milt99

scotty,

Watching DMTH right now









Sorry, with my "new" pj and screen, I'm re-watching some of old favorites.
*O*rder *O*f *T*he *P*hoenix, Harry Potter.


----------



## mrlittlejeans

I finally got everything up and was able to watch a movie this weekend. I ended up building a new frame using extruded aluminum tubing and attaching wood to the back of it. It ended up working very well. The screen size is 54 3/8" x 130". The one thing I was looking to gain by the switch was to remove the moire I was getting with the sheerweave 4500. I am happy to say there is not a hint of moire with this new screen material. The picture quality is great. I was always a bit disappointed that I could not make out the pixel grid pattern on the 4500. I still cannot but I can definitely make out more than I could previously. I'm very happy with this new material. Projector used is an RS20. Sound quality was fine although I've only watched the new transformers movie so far (I didn't get done until yesterday at 6:00). I'll try to take some pics this week. It is definitely an upgrade over the 4500.


----------



## Dragon Reborn

I'm looking for some confirmation about Seymour's Fixed Frame screens:


The frame is:


A) Aluminum?

B) 1.5" thick (depth)?


Thanks.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dragon Reborn* /forum/post/17422770
> 
> 
> I'm looking for some confirmation about Seymour's Fixed Frame screens:
> 
> 
> The frame is:
> 
> 
> A) Aluminum?



Yes. It's 6063/T6 aluminum, and a nice heavy .092" wall thickness, which is 50% thicker than many major screen companies frames priced multiple times higher.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dragon Reborn* /forum/post/17422770
> 
> 
> B) 1.5" thick (depth)?



The extrusion, yes. Accounting for the thickness of the Fidelio, however, the finished product measures 1.6" thick. I revised the site specs to more accurately reflect that.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## jrm1504




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/16665693
> 
> 
> We don't stock sizes, since everything is hand made to order here in Ames, IA. They take about a week to make, although I had a visitor at the end of the day yesterday pickup a fabric order and when he saw the new fixed frame screen he insisted that we make one for him right now. Jon lasted until about 12:30am and I sealed it up at 2am.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Well, I'm finally ready to get one coming. I am thinking a 16:9 105. Best to call in the order or just do it on the website? Also, I'm sure it has been discussed a lot in the multitude of pages here, but what is the black backing supposed to do?


----------



## chriscmore

The black backing is a light barrier that's only needed if you have medium or lighter colors or bits that would be too reflective, such as exposed aluminum drivers. It's standard on the retractables, but most fixed frame screens don't need it. Try paint first, but if you can't darken things then it's a great solution. It can be added later if you want, so don't stress too much about it.


However you want to place an order is fine with us, so do what's convenient for you.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## phansson

Hey Chris,


I am in the middle of a re-model on my home theater. The screen that I purchased from you earlier this year was white. So instead of painting it, I am going to try to cover it with black velvet (adhesive backed).


What is the white strip of "foam" on the bottom of the case for? Is it important? If I remove it what will happen?


Thanks

patrick hansson


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Pat -


The foam strip along the bottom helps to hide the weight bar in the case, as well as dampen vibrations and keep things quiet.


I'll send you a strip of black foam, so go ahead and peel it off. It might not want to come off very nicely - the adhesive is pretty strong - so sometimes a hair dryer helps weaken it.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17472159
> 
> 
> Hi Pat -
> 
> 
> The foam strip along the bottom helps to hide the weight bar in the case, as well as dampen vibrations and keep things quiet.
> 
> 
> I'll send you a strip of black foam, so go ahead and peel it off. It might not want to come off very nicely - the adhesive is pretty strong - so sometimes a hair dryer helps weaken it.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Wow thanks Chris,


I wish I would have just ordered the case black to begin with.


----------



## Bigfish88

Chris (or anyone else willing to take a stab at this),


I think I saw mention somewhere in this thread that you were looking at the possibility of manufacturing masking panels for your screens. Any rough ETA on this? Winter '09/Spring '10? Later? I'm looking at CIH and love the clean look it provides when viewing 16:9 content on a 2:35 screen.


Also, for mounting purposes, I have to fit the screen in a 56" opening between a knee wall and a soffit. As far as I can tell, the max diagonal I could go with on a 2.35:1 would be 125" (approx 49" tall + 7" extra). Would this be too tight? Would I be better served going with 119" diagonal (appox 46.5" tall + 7" extra)?


Not sure it matters, but I'm planning on purchasing the AE4000.


I'm a newbie to this, so I appreciate the help.


Thanks in advance!


----------



## Kaisand

Bigfish88,

If I were you I would call Chris directly. He has been very helpful and knowledgeable when I have talked with him. He was very patient with me asking A TON of questions!


His phone number is:

515 450 5694


----------



## Bigfish88

Thanks, Kaisand! Will do.


----------



## fteixeira

chris:


Back in post in post 167 , it was mentioned a 12V trigger option to control the retractable screen was only available with th Somfy motor. That's a really expensive way to go if only need a 12V trigger. Is this still the case?


With popular projectors offering 12V trigger out, such as the panasonic pt-ae4000u, it would be nice to have a low cost 12V trigger solution. Any suggestions:


fteixeira


----------



## phansson

Hey Chris, sorry to keep asking questions....


If I wanted to paint my screen case, how hard would it be to take it apart and re-assemble?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bigfish88* /forum/post/17500170
> 
> 
> Chris (or anyone else willing to take a stab at this),
> 
> 
> I think I saw mention somewhere in this thread that you were looking at the possibility of manufacturing masking panels for your screens. Any rough ETA on this? Winter '09/Spring '10? Later? I'm looking at CIH and love the clean look it provides when viewing 16:9 content on a 2:35 screen.
> 
> 
> Also, for mounting purposes, I have to fit the screen in a 56" opening between a knee wall and a soffit. As far as I can tell, the max diagonal I could go with on a 2.35:1 would be 125" (approx 49" tall + 7" extra). Would this be too tight? Would I be better served going with 119" diagonal (appox 46.5" tall + 7" extra)?
> 
> 
> Not sure it matters, but I'm planning on purchasing the AE4000.
> 
> 
> I'm a newbie to this, so I appreciate the help.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!



Hi Jeff -


We haven't really started that project still. I'm hoping to start it soon. I can't estimate the availability date because I'm not sure how much off-the-shelf components I can use versus custom. If I want something custom extruded, that's 2-3 months right there. We'll do it, though, for sure and I'll know more later.


I'd try for the largest size you can put in there, and keep in mind that if you want us to trim it down however small you want we can do that too. We don't charge any extra for custom sizes, it's just the price of the larger standard size. You can specify it to the 0.1 inch, so if you were concerned about a F115, we could do a F114.5 for example.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fteixeira* /forum/post/17505195
> 
> 
> chris:
> 
> 
> Back in post in post 167 , it was mentioned a 12V trigger option to control the retractable screen was only available with th Somfy motor. That's a really expensive way to go if only need a 12V trigger. Is this still the case?
> 
> 
> With popular projectors offering 12V trigger out, such as the panasonic pt-ae4000u, it would be nice to have a low cost 12V trigger solution. Any suggestions:
> 
> 
> fteixeira



We now have an inexpensive solution available. Using the Gen4 motor controller (and the 4-wire screen motor option), we have a little 12Vdc module that you simply wire into the dry contact terminals and voila, your motor controller speaks trigger.


I'll get it added to the site with a pic soon.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/17511303
> 
> 
> Hey Chris, sorry to keep asking questions....
> 
> 
> If I wanted to paint my screen case, how hard would it be to take it apart and re-assemble?



That's hard to do. If I were you I'd mask the slot and paint it in the case. Let me know if you need new labels or anything.


Foam's going out tomorrow, btw...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17513117
> 
> 
> That's hard to do. If I were you I'd mask the slot and paint it in the case. Let me know if you need new labels or anything.
> 
> 
> Foam's going out tomorrow, btw...
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris,


I will try to mask the slot then.


Patrick


----------



## Dragon Reborn

Hey Chris,


I received my screen and I LOVE IT!







My custom order for the fixed frame screen was perfect in size.










Thanks again!


----------



## kendo70433

Hi Chris,


I have been saving my pennies and might just have enough before the end of the year for a retractable screen. I will want to mount it in the ceiling. Has your in-ceiling mounting kit made it onto the drawing boards? I know you mentioned it as a future option a while ago, and I want to encourage it's development. I'm a development engineer myself, so I'd be glad to help with debugging the prototype, if that will be the stage it's at.


~Ken


----------



## phansson

Hey Chris,


Got the screen case painted and it looks really nice. I put on three coats of paint with a "paper" sand job in between coats. Thanks for the advice.


I also need to lower the screen stop down about 3". I couldn't find my owners manual, how would I go about that?


thanks

patrick


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/17556091
> 
> 
> I also need to lower the screen stop down about 3". I couldn't find my owners manual, how would I go about that?
> 
> 
> thanks
> 
> patrick



The manual is online at http://www.seymourav.com/ It has the procedure for the RF controlled screens. Might work for IR.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/17595525
> 
> 
> The manual is online at http://www.seymourav.com/ It has the procedure for the RF controlled screens. Might work for IR.



Hi Kendo -


Not quite. The IR control is done through the external control box, which controls the 4-wire motor. The 4-wire motor is mechanical in its limits, so is manually adjusted with a hex tool and little pots on the motor head. The manual needs a specific little section with pics on this.


On the ceiling kit, it hasn't been started yet.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17595933
> 
> 
> On the ceiling kit, it hasn't been started yet.



Too bad; I'd hoped for a SeymourAV solution for the ceiling trim. I'll have to switch to plan B. I sent you an email yesterday about ordering a screen. We can discuss it in that venue.


----------



## jimluu

Hi Chris. I'm looking at the f130 fixed screen. Is there anyway to mount the fixed frame flushed with the ceiling? If I buy a 2:35:1 130" wide fixed screen, how far down from the ceiling does the cleat go, and can I get away with 2 9 inch cleats? How much does this frame weigh? Can you do 2.4 instead of 2.35?


Thx.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jimluu* /forum/post/17664266
> 
> 
> Hi Chris. I'm looking at the f130 fixed screen. Is there anyway to mount the fixed frame flushed with the ceiling? If I buy a 2:35:1 130" wide fixed screen, how far down from the ceiling does the cleat go, and can I get away with 2 9 inch cleats? How much does this frame weigh? Can you do 2.4 instead of 2.35?
> 
> 
> Thx.



Yes, several ways. One (not flush method) is for us to thread/tap holes for black eye bolts (which we have) for you to either chain to the ceiling or we have a fine gauge stainless steel cable we can Nicopress to whatever length you need.


What it sound like you'd prefer is to mount a 2x4 along the 2" side to the ceiling. Then, you can mount the cleat to that, and hang the screen from the cleat. The cleat only needs about 0.5" to 1" to hang the screen from, depending on how close you want to do it and how variable your ceiling surface is. For this kind of installation, I'd recommend a small stop-block be added to plug the distance from the screen to the ceiling in at least one spot so that someone couldn't accidentally bump the screen up and it come off the cleat. Safety chaining in the back is another alternative.


For that wide a screen, standard would be for us to send you two, 18" cleats. Since the screen only weighs about 45 lb, you could certainly use two 9-inch or smaller cleats. We can chop them and send whatever you want. As long as you get at least two load-bearing mounting points, it'll be good.


2.4 or 2.37 is no problem. We make to order and can do whatever you want with a 0.1" resolution, so if a F129.7 at a 2.4 ratio is what you need to fit - then just specify it.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Gig103

Hey Chris,

Thanks for taking my phone call the other day. I ordered my screen yesterday with Scottyb and I can't wait for it to arrive!!


I also can't wait to see what you come up with for masking panels!


----------



## bfisherjr

+1 on the masking panels. I've been using the screen for about 3 months now and it's awesome - been extremely pleased. I thought about trying to make my own masking panel but I doubt it would look as good as what Chris comes up with.


----------



## Dragon Reborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfisherjr* /forum/post/17699293
> 
> 
> +1 on the masking panels. I've been using the screen for about 3 months now and it's awesome - been extremely pleased. I thought about trying to make my own masking panel but I doubt it would look as good as what Chris comes up with.



For those interested in making their own masking panels for their Seymour screen, you could probably improvise something by using neodymium magnets.


Here's how:


You build masking panels with magnets in them. The screen frame is made of aluminum, so magnets won't stick. HOWEVER, the L-brackets (that are used in the frame corners) are made of metal. Unfortunately, they aren't really long enough, vertically, to position a masking panel.


But, if you can fit your own strip of metal (or magnets) into the frame during assembly, then you could easily attach a masking panel to the screen frame. (The panel would cover the frame and not touch the screen).


Or, if Chris were to either (A) pre-install neodymium magnets at the 2.40:1 spot, or (B) supply a longer L-bracket, then all you'd have to do is make the masks. What do you think, Chris?


The only downside to this approach is that if the magnetic attraction is too strong, you're going to flatten the nap of the velvet. So, if you had the lights on and the masks off, you might get some flat-spotting on the Seymour frame. With a bit of trial-and-error, you could find the right size/strength of magnet to provide just enough strength to hold it in position. That still might flatten the nap a tiny bit, but with the lights off, you won't notice it.


----------



## mjg100

I took my existing 106" Elunevision (fixed frame) and converted it over to a Seymour XD screen. I then made a mechanical horizontal masking system. The two masking panels are tied together using 1/16" cable, pulleys and a shaft mounted with pillow block bearings. The masks stay level and move together (opposite direction) when you move one mask. Since the masking panel has to move up and down in front of the screen frame I made a sheet metal angle to attach onto the back side of the masking panels to carry the edge of the masking system to the screen. Masking panels and angle are wrapped with Triple Black Velvet. My system does not create any shadow on the screen. Click on the link at the bottom of this post for the build thread. If you have any questions I will try to answer them for you. AT screen with a masking system is a great way to go. I love mine.


----------



## kendo70433

Dragon Reborn,


Did you build the magnetic masking panels you describe? I looked through your pictorials but didn't see them.


Thanks, Ken


----------



## Dragon Reborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/17718955
> 
> 
> Dragon Reborn,
> 
> 
> Did you build the magnetic masking panels you describe? I looked through your pictorials but didn't see them.
> 
> 
> Thanks, Ken



Yeah, I built the panels myself, detailed at the thread link below. If you have any more questions about the panels, feel free to ask:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1200781


----------



## kendo70433

Great write-up. Some of those pictures of the velvet panels look like holes in my screen, which is probably what you want and what they look like in action







Nice idea about using foam for the masking panels. I haven't gotten nearly that far yet.


----------



## SA_Filmmaker

I've had the centerstage 116" retractable screen for about 9 months, with the original fabric. I see there are alot of questions about recessed installations - I did a recessed install of the screen in by basement (9ft ceiings), between the floor joists (just by luck the joists were running parallel to the direction I needed the screen). So I mounted the screen between the joists and left the 19" space between the joists open, and drywalled the rest of the ceiling. Then to trim it off, I installed about 16" of suspended ceiling flush with the drwall, leaving about a 2.5-3" slot that the screen drops through. I also wired an outlet up into the ceiling for power. It worked great, and the nice thing is that if I ever need to get access to the screen, it is not a prob with the suspended tiles, and if I ever need to move, I can take the screen in the case with me. I'll try to get some pics up over the holidays here.


Second thing is that my screen has developed some pretty major waves, and I've been dealing with Chris for possible solutions. I have the XD sample fabric, and with the Panny 3000AE, I can't say I notice alot of IQ difference sitting even 12 ft from the screen (holding it up for comparison). I have seen the couple other responses from AV members regarding the wave issue, but if there are any other suggestions that would be great!


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

I am having a heck of a time picking a screen. I think I have narrowed it down to two choices though. The Center Stage XD and the Enlightor 4K, I have samples of both here to look at.


The biggest pluses to the XD material are price (great price for a DIY) and the better gain, 1.2 -vrs- .98


The only thing that has me worried is that the 4K material is much finer and smoother. When you put the two side by side it makes the XD look very coase and patterned.


The XD is a much heavier and durable looking fabric. The 4K is much thinner and more transucent, which is why it has the lower gain I am guessing. I am really on the fence about this even though the 4K cost 4 times as much.


Has anyone done any direct comparing of these two screen? I hate to bring anouther brand of screen in to this thread and don't mean to offend in doing so. But I think the best source of information is people that have actually used and had these products.


I could try and take a comparison picture if anyone it interested


----------



## chriscmore

Hi SA-


The original screen material HAD to be cut at a tilted angle, which for retractable screens made them more difficult to get the tension forces balanced out well enough. There are several things you can do depending on the pattern of the waves as shown in the manual.


The XD material greatly helps this because it's moire reducing weave allows us to not tilt the cuts for retractables. So while we still as a standard tilt the cuts for fixed screens and often recommend them for DIY fixed - since there's no down side other than some scrap - now that we're (so far) successful in non-tilted XD retractable screens, we've made them much less sensitive to how they hang.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Mopar -


I don't yet have a comparison analysis for the EN4K, although I give it all proper respects as a great screen material. At close distances, it is the smoothest texture AT screen anywhere, so while the arms-length comparison looks obvious, check them out at your viewing distances.


The price differences aren't that great if you compare fully manufactured fixed frames. DIY to a finished product isn't very fair unless you consider your DIY time as entertainment (some do - it's an affliction). So while there is some difference to the budget, it may likely come down to a brightness vs. texture for you.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17787874
> 
> 
> Hi Mopar -
> 
> 
> I don't yet have a comparison analysis for the EN4K, although I give it all proper respects as a great screen material. At close distances, it is the smoothest texture AT screen anywhere, so while the arms-length comparison looks obvious, check them out at your viewing distances.
> 
> 
> The price differences aren't that great if you compare fully manufactured fixed frames. DIY to a finished product isn't very fair unless you consider your DIY time as entertainment (some do - it's an affliction). So while there is some difference to the budget, it may likely come down to a brightness vs. texture for you.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks for your comments. And yes my time is worth very little







I don't mind making my own stuff. I actually kinda prefer it.


I will do some more evaluating in my room when I get it more in order, just got the rear riser finished up today. One thing that I can't tell is if when you project an image on it if the texture disapears, no projector yet.


I have had rear projection for a few year now, before their was LCD. I it alway bug the heck out of me to go to someone elses house and watch a CRT because I could see all the "dots" on the screen. Even the cheap LCD I can see it and can't stand it. That is the kind of thing I want to stay away from if possible. I am pretty sure that I am going with the Panny 4000.


----------



## edfowler

Got to chime in with a great big two thumbs up for the xd centerstage screen.


I've had several different screens with the last one being Stewart StudioTek 130 : 16/9 aspect ratio that was 8' wide. I've always considered myself a videophile first and movie lover second.


After sampling a large piece of xd material I took the plunge and ordered the centerstage xd to do a 120" wide 2.35 diy screen. It was the easiest screen material to work with that I have done.


The end result is amazing. The picture quality is excellent and having three identical speakers directly behind the screen definately raises the whole experience to a new level.


No way I would go back to a solid screen.


Chris was patient with me and got the precision cut piece out to me within 24 hours so I could build the screen over xmas break and enjoy the new theater.


thanks Chris! I'll be ordering another screen for the kid's theater in a few weeks. Only this time I think it is going to be 12-14' wide.


----------



## Gig103

Chiming in again - my fixed screen arrived, and it looks awesome. The Fidelio velvet is great, and the install o-ring system is a breeze.


I have a question about hanging the screen in regards to "blocking" the sound. I had everything framed with the assumption that the base of the image would start at 30" above the floor. Now that the screen is hung, I was thinking of raising its height, but that would mean the bottom of the aluminum frame would be at 30", "blocking" 3.5" of sound.


Acoustically, will this make a large difference? My speakers are floor standing Martin Logan ESLs -- they top out at 53" high, and the panel itself starts at 27" off the floor. They *should* be about a foot from the screen and framing, as close to the back as I can manage.


Images attached for visual - those are photoshopped in speakers for visual assistance


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gig103* /forum/post/17792712
> 
> 
> Chiming in again - my fixed screen arrived, and it looks awesome. The Fidelio velvet is great, and the install o-ring system is a breeze.
> 
> 
> I have a question about hanging the screen in regards to "blocking" the sound. I had everything framed with the assumption that the base of the image would start at 30" above the floor. Now that the screen is hung, I was thinking of raising its height, but that would mean the bottom of the aluminum frame would be at 30", "blocking" 3.5" of sound.
> 
> 
> Acoustically, will this make a large difference? My speakers are floor standing Martin Logan ESLs -- they top out at 53" high, and the panel itself starts at 27" off the floor. They *should* be about a foot from the screen and framing, as close to the back as I can manage.
> 
> 
> Images attached for visual - those are photoshopped in speakers for visual assistance




Why not just put them on a 6" riser?


----------



## Doug G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SA_Filmmaker* /forum/post/17781874
> 
> 
> Second thing is that my screen has developed some pretty major waves, and I've been dealing with Chris for possible solutions. I have the XD sample fabric, and with the Panny 3000AE, I can't say I notice alot of IQ difference sitting even 12 ft from the screen (holding it up for comparison). I have seen the couple other responses from AV members regarding the wave issue, but if there are any other suggestions that would be great!



I've had an XD retractable for the last 6 months, and had the original material for a year prior to that. My original screen did develop some waves, mainly in the lower corners. I checked the new one when it arrived and it was table flat. But recently I noted some non-linear movement in the top half of the screen just right of center and when I investigated I found that the tension wire on that side hadn't been put thru the loop at that height during manufacture. No biggie, I just popped off the end cap, removed the turnbuckle and threaded it thru and re-attached it.


But in working on the screen I did notice that it has seemed to develop some minor waves again in the lower corners. Its also got some very minor ripples along the top edge, but I'm also using about a 20" drop so this may be a contributing factor. (They're not really an issue, esp for scope material with the black bars.) To address the corner waves I adjusted the tension wires to lengthen them slightly to allow the bar to exert more force on the screen and that seemed to mostly eradicate them. I think the material is stretching a small amount, and hopefully this doesn't continue. But if it does I think it just means the tension wires need to be tweaked every so often. My only real concern is that if the velvet borders don't also expand, at some point it might not be possible to adjust the tension to effectively eliminate any waves. I am curious to know if the fixed frame and DIY folks have found that small waves eventually develop in isolated areas and they need to re-tension?


This is by no means a reflection on the quality of the product Chris offers and despite this small issue the CenterStage screens are still the bang for the buck leader by a mile. Plus I know with his excellent customer service if any of these items do become irreparable, he'll take good care of me!


----------



## BIGmouthinDC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17787874
> 
> 
> 
> The price differences aren't that great if you compare fully manufactured fixed frames.




Actually yours are *very* competitively priced based on the pricing I've received.


----------



## chriscmore

Gig -


I agree that the easiest would be to put the MLs up on risers. If you don't want to do that, I'd figure out a way to get those framing members out of the way of the speaker. If you do need that knee-wall, then I'd cut out the framing in front of the speakers and then tie the "floating" center piece back to the black frames. Presuming you're going to put a center in there (or ideally an identical third floor-stander!), then you can spread the LR to the edges. If not, a 2-channel front soundstage can still image great since they're behind an AT screen.


I don't imagine that the +3" up the panel would make much difference, but I can't say what the sonic effect of having the frame in front of ML's panels would be in the first place. But no-wood would be ideal...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Hey Doug -


I've heard of some DIY folks having to re-fasten to their frames, but it seems to be due to using wood framing. The dimensions change with humidity and temperature and its stiffness to weight is poor compared to aluminum.


The extruded fixed frame folks would never need to worry about that because not only does the aluminum solve the frame stiffness issue, but the dynamic o-ring tension will always pull in all directions like a trampoline.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Gig103

Thanks Chris, and Mopar. I guess that means I should give it a shot, and see if there's a noticeable difference with the frame in the way or not. A 6" pedestal is a good idea should I need it.


----------



## Doug G

Chris - you're definitely right about the wood frame....recently a co-worker who just built a DIY theater in his basement was commenting how his screen was bowing out in one of the lower corners. I told him I didn't notice this recently while over for a cal session. Well, he made a simple frame from 2x4s with two vertical braces of the same and covered it with a sheet of that laminate which is popular for fixed frame non-AT DIY applications (I don't recall the name of the stuff.) Well as it turned out he built the screen in July and has no A/C in his house so the wood was swollen. Now with the cold dry winter weather here his frame has dried out and warped. He had to build additional mounts for the lower corners to keep it flat.


----------



## bfisherjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gig103* /forum/post/17792712
> 
> 
> I have a question about hanging the screen in regards to "blocking" the sound. I had everything framed with the assumption that the base of the image would start at 30" above the floor. Now that the screen is hung, I was thinking of raising its height, but that would mean the bottom of the aluminum frame would be at 30", "blocking" 3.5" of sound.



Personally, I would put the speakers on a riser even with your original plans. Your speakers are low (and below) compared to the screen and I believe you will be able to hear that height difference. One of the biggest benefits of AT screens is that the sound comes out from exactly where it's supposed to...


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfisherjr* /forum/post/17798667
> 
> 
> Personally, I would put the speakers on a riser even with your original plans. Your speakers are low (and below) compared to the screen and I believe you will be able to hear that height difference. One of the biggest benefits of AT screens is that the sound comes out from exactly where it's supposed to...



But which is more important. 1) Speaker centered behind screen -or- 2) Tweeter at ear level?


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/17813518
> 
> 
> But which is more important. 1) Speaker centered behind screen -or- 2) Tweeter at ear level?



Who's ears are you going to use, 6'-5" guy or a 5'-0" woman?







As long as the speakers are placed near ear level (slightly above or slightly below) it will not matter. Just place all three at the same height. Error toward the side that brings the tweeters closer to the center of your screen.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17817661
> 
> 
> Who's ears are you going to use, 6'-5" guy or a 5'-0" woman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the speakers are placed near ear level (slightly above or slightly below) it will not matter. Just place all three at the same height. Error toward the side that brings the tweeters closer to the center of your screen.



The reason that I ask is because I am running into the same problem in my own build. To really get the speaker behind the screen the tweeter will be 65" off the floor. This is about 20" above first row and 6" above second row.


You can see some dwarings of what I am doing here: Theater Plans 


Open the drawing of the left wall give you the best look at it.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/17813518
> 
> 
> But which is more important. 1) Speaker centered behind screen -or- 2) Tweeter at ear level?



I have had my center speakers in several different heights behind my SeymourAV electric screen, and they all worked very well and locked the dialogue to the action, _as long as I aimed the tweeter to ear height at the seating positions_.


I first had the AV123 RSC200 center on top of my RPTV which put it in the upper third of my drop down projection screen, and now I use the AV123 X-Voce center speaker placed below my LCD TV which puts it in the bottom third of the projection screen. I used rubber door stops to angle the center speaker up or down to the appropriate angle. I also think that the X-Voce speaker lends itself well to lower positions in the room, as the top of the speaker is an open baffle design which is designed to (and seems to) let some sound bounce up and off the back wall. My line source LS-6 main speakers have such a large vertical spread of all the drivers, that of course I don't have to worry about tweeter height placement for them.


----------



## fteixeira




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17513109
> 
> 
> We now have an inexpensive solution available. Using the Gen4 motor controller (and the 4-wire screen motor option), we have a little 12Vdc module that you simply wire into the dry contact terminals and voila, your motor controller speaks trigger.
> 
> 
> I'll get it added to the site with a pic soon.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Chris, I received my 120" wide 2.35 XD retractable screen right before

Christmas and installed it a few days ago. Let me say that I couldn't be happier. The build quality is excellent and all I needed to do was adjust the turn-buckles a bit to cure some waviness (I let the screen hang for 48hrs before adjusting). Getting it up on the ceiling was a little challenging due to weight and length, but the track rail made it manageable. I don't have an ideal room... my setup is in our multi-use Family room with latte-color walls, white ceiling, ~95% light controlled. My pt-ae4000u still projects a wonderful picture in Cinema1 mode, but I prefer Normal mode for added brightness. Again, excellent product, excellent communication and excellent service.


One thing: I was able to get the screen to drop and retract with a simple hook-up of the momentary wall switch to the motor-control box. However, I'm have trouble with the 12V trigger module. I connected the trigger wire to the two wire connection on the module. I have verified that the module sees 12V when the projector is on, and 0V when it is off. The module is not marked at the 2-wire input, so I don't know if polarity is an issue (I tried both ways and still did not work). Also, the 3 pins on the module (that connect to the control box) are not marked well: middle pin marked "C", one end pin marked "U", last pin unmarked. Do you have any detailed instructions that you can send me? Or better yet, post a link so that everyone has access to the info?


Update: I'm actually seeing 11.75V from the projector trigger output, but that shouldn't make a difference. To be sure, I even used a 12V power supply (measured 11.99V), again no success. I am wondering if the 12V trigger module is damaged in some way.


fteixeira


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/17821326
> 
> 
> The reason that I ask is because I am running into the same problem in my own build. To really get the speaker behind the screen the tweeter will be 65" off the floor. This is about 20" above first row and 6" above second row.
> 
> 
> You can see some dwarings of what I am doing here: Theater Plans
> 
> 
> Open the drawing of the left wall give you the best look at it.



Tweeter at ear height or a little above. Use AT material below the screen and remove any framing that is in front of the speakers.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17828843
> 
> 
> Tweeter at ear height or a little above. Use AT material below the screen and remove any framing that is in front of the speakers.



Its hard to remove the framing when you have to have a frame around your screen. .....


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/17845267
> 
> 
> Its hard to remove the framing when you have to have a frame around your screen. .....



No it is not. It is very simple to do so. You remove any studs that are in front of any speakers. You brace the top plate to the back wall in several places and then you cut out the top plate. When you cover with GOM you just span the cloth over the whole area.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17846487
> 
> 
> No it is not. It is very simple to do so. You remove any studs that are in front of any speakers. You brace the top plate to the back wall in several places and then you cut out the top plate. When you cover with GOM you just span the cloth over the whole area.



That would be possible yes. But I have to make my screen removable so I can get behind the screen wall. The screen needs its own frame so it can be removed easily.


----------



## jimluu

Hi Chris. I finally got around to assembling my fixed screen and it looks great! I wonder how hard it would be to modify it to a curved screen? perhaps using longer length screws towards the center and shorter ones towards the outsides?


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17828843
> 
> 
> Tweeter at ear height or a little above. Use AT material below the screen and remove any framing that is in front of the speakers.



Now, I don't worry about this because my tweeter is 6' long. But the idea is interesting to follow.


One variation I have heard is to have the tweeter *aimed* at the ear height at seating position. IF you only had a single seating row, the speaker could be mounted a few feet up behind the screen, tilted to aim at ear height and completely missing the screen and structural framing.


I was reading the latest Mapleshade catalog last night. They made the heretical statement that tweeter at ear height was not necessarily right; one must experiment with tilting the speaker to find the best sound.


I think it's great that, whatever contradictory, vague, or plain impossible advice we get on how to set up HT, it always comes down to what looks and sounds the best to the HT owner (or significant Other.)


----------



## Audixium




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/17853820
> 
> 
> I think it's great that, whatever contradictory, vague, or plain impossible advice we get on how to set up HT, it always comes down to what looks and sounds the best to the HT owner (or significant Other.)



This is true. But the physics don't change just because someone can't accommodate it. Tweeter at ear level recommendations are accurate. Tilting applies only when you can't (or won't) accommodate the combination of the physics of sound, current speaker design, and listening location.


Would it be horrible to not be on the same plane and tilt towards the ears? No. But given the lengths most of us go through to enjoy this hobby, a little extra effort/sacrifice to follow well established methods gets us much closer to experiencing AV nirvana.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

My only other way to get the tweeter close to ear level is putting the speakers upside down. I might give this a try.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

Can anyone with a full XD screen and a 15deg tilt give me their opinion on how far you have to be from the screen before the the "texture" of the screen is not noticable.


The XD is literally less then 1/4 the price of the Enlightor 4K DIY kit. Actually you can buy the XD Fixed frame cheaper then the Enlightor DIY !!!!


Based on that I think I want to give it a try. Maybe if I don't like it I can sell it and start over.......


----------



## deromax

Mopar, just request a free sample of the stuff and see for yourself. I did and I find the texture disapear at about 8 feet with room lighting, not projected image (don't have a projector yet!). I think a viewing distance of 10 feet or more is generally recommanded with this material.


By the way, I find the material much more resistant and dimensionnally stable than I thought it would be. I was thinking it would be like some heavy cotton fabric but it actually feels like a window shade. Great stuff!


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax* /forum/post/17868074
> 
> 
> Mopar, just request a free sample of the stuff and see for yourself. I did and I find the texture disapear at about 8 feet with room lighting, not projected image (don't have a projector yet!). I think a viewing distance of 10 feet or more is generally recommanded with this material.
> 
> 
> By the way, I find the material much more resistant and dimensionnally stable than I thought it would be. I was thinking it would be like some heavy cotton fabric but it actually feels like a window shade. Great stuff!



I do have a sample and come up with about the same distance that you do, but my wife can still see the texture at 12' (better eyes then me) but like you I don't have a projector to put an image on it to see if it goes away.


----------



## Doug G

My seating distance is about 11' and I can really only see it during lighter scenes in the more uniform areas. But only if I'm looking for it, if I'm really into the program I hardly ever see it. I also find that for some reason SD material seems to enhance it slightly compared with HD content.


I also want to amend my comments above about adjusting the tension for the corner waves. I played with the lower corner turnbuckles more and found I got better results by raising the tension wires so that they were just starting to support the weight of the bar, and then I tightened the horizontal turnbuckles on each side slightly to pull the screen more taut and now my waves have all but disappeared.


----------



## topcop69mich

I purchased the center stage material and the purchase went off without a hitch. Good service and prompt delivery. I justed wanted to post a note about the crosscut option. I had an epson8100 that I planned taking back to BB and getting the AE4000. The epson/center stage combo displayed significant moire on bright scenes. With the 4k its all but gone no doubt attributed to the smoothscreen technology. Botttom line, using anything other than the panny or sxrd tech make sure u spend the couple extra bucks so it can be cut on an angle. Displays a nice pic. Great to have sound behind the screen, especially for 2.35. Only very faint visibilty of weave on bright scenes at 13 ft. Great price. If I had the xtra bucks I would have liked to give the HP a try.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/17854364
> 
> 
> My only other way to get the tweeter close to ear level is putting the speakers upside down. I might give this a try.



From looking at your pictures it looks like your best choices are to either turn the speakers up side down or lower the screen. Lowering the screen will probably require you to use a taller riser.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17886153
> 
> 
> From looking at your pictures it looks like your best choices are to either turn the speakers up side down or lower the screen. Lowering the screen will probably require you to use a taller riser.



Taller riser plus a lower projector mount. Neither is an option, riser is already built and if I lower the projector any more it will be a head banger on the riser.


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> This is true. But the physics don't change just because someone can't accommodate it. Tweeter at ear level recommendations are accurate. Tilting applies only when you can't (or won't) accommodate the combination of the physics of sound, current speaker design, and listening location.
> 
> 
> Would it be horrible to not be on the same plane and tilt towards the ears? No.



As Einstein said, physics is relative. Assuming that tweeters HAD to point to one's ears, nothing in the physics says that the speaker has to be vertical. The sound wave will still launch evenly from all drivers toward your ear. So raise the speaker and tilt it.


(Personally, I'd still want to test to hear what tweeter aim sounded best to me.)


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/17890922
> 
> 
> As Einstein said, physics is relative. Assuming that tweeters HAD to point to one's ears, nothing in the physics says that the speaker has to be vertical. The sound wave will still launch evenly from all drivers toward your ear. So raise the speaker and tilt it.
> 
> 
> (Personally, I'd still want to test to hear what tweeter aim sounded best to me.)



I agree. Some companies and knowledgeable people recommend tilting main speakers (usually slightly up) to find the optimum sound for an individual room. Similar concept with a center channel speaker, though on a different plane.


----------



## Briands

We got a Wii for Xmas... any one have experience with placing the sensor bar behind AT screen material?


----------



## edfowler

we just place the bar on top of the screen and it does great.


----------



## Dragon Reborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Briands* /forum/post/17920618
> 
> 
> We got a Wii for Xmas... any one have experience with placing the sensor bar behind AT screen material?



Yikes. I shudder to think of standard def Wii graphics on a PJ screen.


----------



## elmalloc

Wii looks awesome on 720p projectors. I don't know how it looks on 1080p stuff but on my sister's ax200 at 110", it's the way Wii was meant to be played!


----------



## Briands




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dragon Reborn* /forum/post/17923305
> 
> 
> Yikes. I shudder to think of standard def Wii graphics on a PJ screen.



The Wii graphics are pretty similar to CGI animation which most scalers handle pretty well.


----------



## fteixeira

I just posted this same info in the Panasonic 4000u thread. Since folks looking at this thread will be interested in Seymor AV screens, here is my setup with pictures.

See here 


Projector: Panasonic 4000u

Screen: Seymour AV XD retractable acoustically transparent, 120" wide 2.35 (~104" diagonal 1.78)

Throw: ~19ft

Room: 12ft wide Multi-use family room with suede-colored walls and white ceiling (far from ideal)

Speakers: Vandersteen setup with VSM-signatures mated to 2W subs in front, VCC-2 center, VSM-1 surrounds mated to another 2W, VSM-1 rears, and a PSB SubSonic7 sub for LFE.

Processor: Onkyo PR-SC5507 Pro

Amp: Sherbourn 7-200, 7-channel, 200W per channel

Blu-ray: PS3 60GB (launch original)


I have not optimized the projector. I am sure I can improve color and contrast quite a bit given some time. Even with the light wall color and white ceiling, I am still getting an amazing picture with a Panny 4000u. The sound is great coming from the screen... very natural and engaging. I am very happy I chose the 2.35 screen.


fteixeira


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

Well I ordered up enough stuff to make a 144"x60" screen (tilted at an angle) along with the black backing. It will be awhile before I can actually use it but the pieces are coming together. Hope to beable to start painting walls this week end, seats all came yesterday.


----------



## phansson

Chris,


When are we going to see a "curved" fixed screen for us CIH users?


----------



## chadcummings

I think I may order a new screen of the XD myself. I am just starting my theater build and bought some of the old stuff a while back which I still have in the tube it shipped in but with everyones results am leaning to buy a new screen already.


Any thoughts or anyone want a good deal on the older materialed screen. 120" 2.35 with velcro sides.


----------



## deromax

My material is being delivered today! Hurray!


----------



## SteveHorn

Regarding a comparison of XD vs. Enlightor 4K, I just yesterday did a a quick-and-dirty comparison, using a borrowed JVC HD950 projector, a bed sheet (!) (Target, 90"x102") folded in half to create an approx 90"(H) screen. I fastened a 2'x2' XD sample and smaller (8"x8") samples of Enlightor2 and 4K with pins to the center of the bed sheet. Then I watched "Australia" (Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman). With my admittedly untrained HT eye, I could see little or no difference in PQ between the 4K and the XD. There were minor differences in gain during several scenes; the XD provided a bit more punch. Texture was unnoticable at my 10' view distance. Doing a pause with a close-up of Ms. Kidman's face on both the XD and 4K, I so NO difference in flesh tones, or granularity.

Caveats: 1) The JVC had not been calibrated (i.e. ISF) and was fresh out of the box, 2) Limited viewing time: 1 movie and several HD TV shows. 3) No audio (i.e. AT) comparison was done. 4) This was my first exposure to large (103" diag) picture in MY HT, so there was a certain amount of WOW factor - even the bed sheet looked good. So certainly not an exhaustive analysis. But it told me what I needed to know: The price difference between the Center Stage and the 4K (the Enlightor2 was not a factor) was not reflected, seen by me anyway, in the quality of the picture. It told me that the Center Stage XD may be the best bang for the buck in screen material.

FWIW,

Steve


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

That is good to here, makes me feel better about my XD purchase (should be here tommarow)


I will also stick my sample of 4K to the XD screen to compare when I get to that stage.


----------



## TFM

Hi guys,

I should be receiving the XD material shortly. I ordered 120.5" diag tilted 20%. I am going crazy trying to find a place for a solid aluminium frame. I was think of buying a fixed frame screen from one of the large manufacturers that use aluminium for a frame with a tension system and just swap the screen materials. What do you guys think?. Prices from aluminium work shops are crazy and they don't really seem open to the idea anyways. So I would rather spend maybe a little more and get a tension system at the same time. Do you think this is even possible? I really want to avoid going the wood frame way, and I don't mind spending a few extra $ to not have to build the frame myself. I am willing to psend an extra 350$. So the cost of the screen would be $300 for the material + 350$ for the frame. If anybody else has any suggestions along these lines, please share!


----------



## SteveHorn

I'm great at spending other people's money. If it were my decision, I'd spring for the Seymour Center Stage at $1369 for 16:9 120.5" (D) and be done with it. By the time you find or fabricate an aluminum frame, design the tensioning system ($), wrap the frame with black-out fabric (more $), design the mounting ($), and charge your time for the time you spent, you could have been sitting in front on the Center Stage and enjoyed a bunch of movies. Since you've apparently settled on the XD material anyway, why not buy the screen and exercise your design "juices" coming up with a masking system that will work with the Center Stage. Like I said, I'm great at spending other people's money...


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

For what it's worth this is my plan.


Build the frame out of wood, probably a 1x3 Maple, could use pine but maple is more stable. The use a product called Screen Tight screwed to the wood frame. The Screen Tight has 2 screen channels, so I can use one for the black backing and one for the screen its self. I am not going to do any fabric on the screen frame it's self. The top and bottom I will make the screen walls panels to over lap the screen and cover the screen tight channel. The side will have a movable masking system that will cover the frame. So no need to wrap the frame.


----------



## SteveHorn

Here's a somewhat off-the-wall question regarding 1.78 (16:9) vs 2.35 aspect ratio fixed Center Stage screens. I'm on the fence - I had virtually decided on a 16:9 aspect ratio screen. But I got to thinking that I can't remember the last film I watched that was not 2.35 (or so). I know it comes down to the percentage of non-film (i.e. HDTV) vs. wide screen film one watches, and where you want your masking done: top/bottom or left/right. Here's the off the wall part: How practical is it to buy the 1.78/16:9 Center Stage then at some point in the future have it resized for 2.35? That presumably would involve shortening the XD material height and "re-grommeting" , and remitering the frame sides, leaving the width untouched. Chris, have you ever entertained that? I'm not talking $ here (can't), but is it practical?


----------



## chriscmore

Steve -


It wouldn't be practical. We space the grommets equidistantly, but their spacing depends on the piece height. You couldn't change that and then expect the grommets to still be where we'd want them. Sure, you could adjust the screw posts, but another costly endeavor would be to re-velvet the frame pieces. We carefully trim and tuck at the ends, so you can't just chop it shorter and have the additional material needed to finish it up perfectly.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/17956485
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> When are we going to see a "curved" fixed screen for us CIH users?



It's on the product plan for this year, but masking panels first.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fteixeira* /forum/post/17823640
> 
> 
> Chris, I received my 120" wide 2.35 XD retractable screen right before
> 
> Christmas and installed it a few days ago. Let me say that I couldn't be happier. The build quality is excellent and all I needed to do was adjust the turn-buckles a bit to cure some waviness (I let the screen hang for 48hrs before adjusting). Getting it up on the ceiling was a little challenging due to weight and length, but the track rail made it manageable. I don't have an ideal room... my setup is in our multi-use Family room with latte-color walls, white ceiling, ~95% light controlled. My pt-ae4000u still projects a wonderful picture in Cinema1 mode, but I prefer Normal mode for added brightness. Again, excellent product, excellent communication and excellent service.
> 
> 
> One thing: I was able to get the screen to drop and retract with a simple hook-up of the momentary wall switch to the motor-control box. However, I'm have trouble with the 12V trigger module. I connected the trigger wire to the two wire connection on the module. I have verified that the module sees 12V when the projector is on, and 0V when it is off. The module is not marked at the 2-wire input, so I don't know if polarity is an issue (I tried both ways and still did not work). Also, the 3 pins on the module (that connect to the control box) are not marked well: middle pin marked "C", one end pin marked "U", last pin unmarked. Do you have any detailed instructions that you can send me? Or better yet, post a link so that everyone has access to the info?
> 
> 
> Update: I'm actually seeing 11.75V from the projector trigger output, but that shouldn't make a difference. To be sure, I even used a 12V power supply (measured 11.99V), again no success. I am wondering if the 12V trigger module is damaged in some way.
> 
> 
> fteixeira



This has been a problem. The 12v input modules worked here but our test motor control boxes were programmed to accept the LVT input signal and act in SPDT mode. When I take a new motor control box, like you got, it's by default acting in DPDT mode from the dry contact inputs. The LVT was difficult to wire and as I belatedly found out requires too much of the installer. It's just a bad way to do it.


So we've been rushing though some bus-command versions of the LVT. These instead plug into the "eye" port, and the LVT BUS will take the 12Vdc trigger voltage and translate that into a bus command that is a snap to install and does not require any effort on your end.


I'll send out a free replacement LVT BUS to anyone that has a LVT.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## elmalloc

*I have a fairly wide image I want to buy a screen for.*


14.3 ft wide 2.35 (6ft tall). I was considering Carada, and also SeymourAV since they have AT material.


What artifacts/moire might I see with the Seymour AV in my situation? I read if the screens were very small (i.e dense 1080p pixels) you could see moire. I imagine I am stretching my pixels out very far.


Projecting on a white wall I am very happy with the image I'm getting right now, I would hate to get a Seymour (or a non AT Carada) and see the image degrade in some manner.


I sit between 13-15 ft away right now.


In general how would the video quality of a SeymourAV compare to a Carada?


I would also be interested in a curved CIH screen with manual (or affordable automatic) masking panels, Carada does not offer curved yet either. I guess I could wait until later in the year but I am impatient...


Please take a minute to view my current picture on a white wall where the screen should go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6isTCYBaW0 


Thanks,

ELmO


----------



## chriscmore

Hi ELmO -


Votes for Carada's BW material would include, 1) if you really need every bit of gain possible - their BW material is almost 10% brighter than our XD material. This is barely noticeable unless you put them side by side, but if you don't have a dark room and need every FtL, then the BW would help. 2) At your seating distance, people can't see 1500+ holes / square inch, so the texture of the XD fabric will not be visible, but if you do end up seating people 10-11' or closer, then the closer you are the more you should go non-AT. And 3) of the non-AT white screen materials, it's what I recommend to my friends and family.


Votes for the XD would be that with a nice wide 2.35 image like that, you can literally get the sound from behind the images. Once you get spoiled with this, you'll go to a friend's house and experience their center channel near the floor - and hate it. At your seating distance to screen ratio (slightly largish screen in my opinion, but your experience projecting on the wall is proof of what you want), you can get all three L/C/R behind the screen for a reference-quality setup.


If you go with our fixed frame kits, we always do a tilted cut up to 20 degrees with respect to the roll, which makes it impossible to moire with any projector - ever. If you do a DIY build, then at this nice wide size, you likely wouldn't need to tilt the cut, although we generally recommend future-proofing it with the tilted cut, or prove via a sample that you'll get good results without.


At your viewing distance, there are no image tradeoffs to going with the XD. Sure, it can't be a silver, gray, black, or high-gain material, but in any application where a near-unity white screen would look good, at an appropriate seating distance the XD is competitive with anything.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## elmalloc

Thanks for the super fast response.


So that sounds good, now I will wait to see what you can come up with regarding curved CIH screens. I use an anamorphic lens with just under 1.5 throw ratio, so I have a minimal amount of pincushioning going on. I live with it on a white wall. I suppose if I got a flat screen, the frame borders could hide the 1-2" of cushioning I experience?


If so, then I might go flat and wait to see what you come up with masking (do you have manual snapins being developed, or automatic?).


I am just surprised at some people's prices these days, yours and carada are very reasonable in comparison.


Thanks,

ELmO


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17973669
> 
> *I have a fairly wide image I want to buy a screen for.*
> 
> 
> 14.3 ft wide 2.35 (6ft tall). I was considering Carada, and also SeymourAV since they have AT material.
> 
> 
> What artifacts/moire might I see with the Seymour AV in my situation? I read if the screens were very small (i.e dense 1080p pixels) you could see moire. I imagine I am stretching my pixels out very far.
> 
> 
> Projecting on a white wall I am very happy with the image I'm getting right now, I would hate to get a Seymour (or a non AT Carada) and see the image degrade in some manner.
> 
> 
> I sit between 13-15 ft away right now.
> 
> 
> In general how would the video quality of a SeymourAV compare to a Carada?
> 
> 
> I would also be interested in a curved CIH screen with manual (or affordable automatic) masking panels, Carada does not offer curved yet either. I guess I could wait until later in the year but I am impatient...
> 
> 
> Please take a minute to view my current picture on a white wall where the screen should go!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6isTCYBaW0
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ELmO




I got my screen material today, while not as big as yours (and I thought I was going to big for my room







) mine will be 12' wide 2.40


Wish I could set it up and give you my thoughts, but the room is far from done. What projector are you using for that large image? I have to decide that yet.


----------



## elmalloc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/17973887
> 
> 
> What projector are you using for that large image? I have to decide that yet.


*Sim2 HT380 DLP.* It is a marvelous projector. I would say it's only down-side (IMO) are low APL scenes. Any mid APL or bright scene is stupendous.


Please show pictures of the screen material/etc. I want it badly now (due to my impatience).


My wall is white and the whole room is vaulted. I have to do something about that...but I'm afraid of scaffolding to paint it.


The projected image actually extends from the light switch all the way to the right edge of the wall right now. I will have to shrink it a little to fit a screen with frame. The blue tape was the non anamorphic lense 16x9 size:




















Check out the suede painting I did recently. Maybe I can do another suede paint for the screen wall? It would make my arm fall off though, the 2nd coat must be applied with 3" brush.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

It will be awhile before I get a screen up to take pictures, it is going to stay rolled up in the tube for now.


We are going to do a similar Faux Leather paint in our theater, it is a 3 color process though. We are making samples now to try and figure the colors out.


----------



## elmalloc

The only thing that can be said here is hard work is rewarded. I will try to paint something special for my screen wall, but may die in the process.


Take a picture of your room, then upload/use ShawFloors.com to geometrically identify the wall and flooring, and replace the walls with paint colors (Benjamin moore in their selection) to get a general idea of how the wall may look with that colour.


----------



## deromax

Elmalloc, I'd like to know how to do such paint effect, It'd be very nice if you could share your technique, maybe in private.


----------



## elmalloc

I will share it publically because if I share it in private people might think we have a thing for each other somehow.


Ralph Lauren Suede paint. Home Depot. $35 a gallon though:
http://www.ralphlaurenhome.com/rlhom...ms.asp?haid=76 


I utilized Caminos Grey.


1) The style is to purchase a special roller cover from Home Depot specifically made for Suede. This will be your first coat, rolled on.

2) Utilize any clean 3" paintbrush and apply the second coat. Apply it in random Xs. That is draw Xs, covering the whole wall. Here is a video of that special technique:
http://www.ralphlaurenhome.com/rlhom...wto.asp?step=4 


The finale is what you see. There are many different colours and spectacular results if you put the time in. My arm and hand was very tired but I kept fighting saying I must finish this so I can post it in AVS forum and have people smile.


-ELmO


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17975378
> 
> 
> The only thing that can be said here is hard work is rewarded. I will try to paint something special for my screen wall, but may die in the process.
> 
> 
> Take a picture of your room, then upload/use ShawFloors.com to geometrically identify the wall and flooring, and replace the walls with paint colors (Benjamin moore in their selection) to get a general idea of how the wall may look with that colour.



Problem is that with the 3 step faux leather you use 3 different color so simulating a solid color on the wall doesn't do much good. Kinda trial and error to see how the 3 colors stack in each othe and how much glaze to put with them.


Ok are we off topic enough yet......sorry


----------



## elmalloc

Silly question.


The fabric right now (as of today) for the seymour AT screens for 170" wide is only like $300 (unless I don't understand linear ft pricing).


The framed version is still a very reasonable $2000.


I like Seymour's offerings a lot, but what's stopping me from buying the fabric and trying to make my own frame? What am I getting out of the frame basically, other than something that will probably look more professional than I can do - and also ability to mask easier later on?


Thanks,

ELmO


----------



## dave7

Well - I finally got my Seymour screen up!


I had bought a pre-grommetted 90" screen back in November I think, and yesterday I had my Pioneer FPJ1 projector calibrated by Gregg Loewen. Since I booked the calibration, I put the proverbial gun to my own head to get this installed. Otherwise, i might never have gotten to it.










I used Chris's o-ring mounting system as this seemed simple and the most elegant set-up I've seen, and it is DIY'able. Chris gave me the exact hole spacings and distances for the posts, and I spaced them slightly more since he mentioned there could be a 1% stretch (about 1mm, perhaps slightly less). I also built my own frame because I wanted my main speakers to sit quite close to the edges. I wrapped the verticle edges around the frame so the posts are 90 degrees behind the screen. All the posts and edges will eventually be covered by a main grill, hiding all the speakers and equipment altogether, and framing/masking the screen properly. In the "Basement - Firehawk 3" image you can see how everything was hidden perviously and the screen is framed out. I don't know how to post images straight into this post, so you'll have to view from the links below.


I sit about 9.5 feet away from the screen and can barely see the texture if I focus on it (and I have excellent vision, slightly far-sighted). If I don't focus on it, it is not noticeable whatsoever. In every way this material is meeting or beating my expectations, and the customer service has been second to none. Obviously I still have work to do before I am truly complete, but I feel the end result will exceed my expectations.


This is my third screen, and best yet (Draper then Stewart, and now Seymour).


Thanks Chris!


----------



## elmalloc

now pctures of it with video on


----------



## dave7

Maybe tonight.


My hushbox weighs about 70 lbs because it's veneered MDF. When I put it back up (a royal PIA) I must have bumped the PJ because the image is slightly tilted.


----------



## bfisherjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17981583
> 
> 
> Silly question.
> 
> 
> The fabric right now (as of today) for the seymour AT screens for 170" wide is only like $300 (unless I don't understand linear ft pricing).
> 
> 
> The framed version is still a very reasonable $2000.
> 
> 
> I like Seymour's offerings a lot, but what's stopping me from buying the fabric and trying to make my own frame? What am I getting out of the frame basically, other than something that will probably look more professional than I can do - and also ability to mask easier later on?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ELmO



I have one of Seymours prebuilt frames and I am exceptionally pleased. I originally considered making my own but decided against it for the following reasons:


- Looks. I bet I could have made it look pretty damn good... but hard to compare to Chris's frame. It looks extremely professional - the velvet on the frame is awesome. No bending or warping even for an exceptionally long screen (I have the 130 in 2.35 format).


- Time - Took me about 30-45 minutes to build and hang the Seymour. Would have taken me a week or two to build my own.


- Masking - again, I could build my own, but I'm confident Chris's will look better than mine when done. I'm looking forward to seeing what his options look like. I have CIH system so I need to mask the sides of the screen for HDTV.


- Risk - The screen is such an important component of the overall system, the last thing I wanted was a tiny wrinkle or bend to form over time. I am confident the Seymour screen will stay perfect forever. My screen is "floating" in the room so it was important to have a screen that I knew was very strong and wouldn't warp or bend over time.


These reasons may not be worth it to you - depends on your circumstances. For me, it was totally worth it. Just like my sub - I could have built my own... but there are advantages to buying one that is already well designed and proven.


----------



## elmalloc

thanks that makes sense. any pictures of your screen?


I'm also CIH and I wonder if I should wait for his curved offerings...does the border help mask any pincoushining you may have - or are you not using an anamorphic lens?


----------



## stevecornell

Has anyone bought the screen material from Chris with the grommets already installed? Basically a fixed screen less the frame.

I have no problems building the frame but it would be nice to use the O-ring tension system.

I have an email into Chris and I'm sure he'll reply the first of the week but just thought I'd ask.


Thanks!


----------



## dave7

Yes, I did (see above) and Chris was very helpful all along the way, giving me the exact grommet measurements and how far off the material to put the posts.


However, if your just going to duplicate the dimensions of one of his screens/frame, you should just get one of his. There's a lot of time and still some cost in making one yourself. His frames wouldn't work in my set-up, so I did my own.


----------



## elmalloc

dave did you go 2.35, 2.37, or 2.4?


Any recommendations? I'm using a lens.


I cannot zoom out (I am at max zoom, nearly), but I can zoom in and make the picture smaller if I must...


Thanks,

ELmO


----------



## stevecornell

The reason I'm leaning toward building the frame is I'd like to "45" the corners to give me a bit more room to the ceiling, my HT room is a bonus room over the garage and the top of the walls are sloped.


Thanks!


----------



## dave7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17989589
> 
> 
> dave did you go 2.35, 2.37, or 2.4?
> 
> 
> Any recommendations? I'm using a lens.
> 
> 
> I cannot zoom out (I am at max zoom, nearly), but I can zoom in and make the picture smaller if I must...
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ELmO



My constraint is the width, so I went 16x9 and will make some nice masks for movies. As a family, we still watch a bit of cable content. I am not using a lens, it's a more basic HT which is why I also didn't do a curved. I thought a curved would look really good, but I was talked out of it since I don't have a lens.


BTW - one mistake I made was wrapping the whole frame in black velvet, even where the screen material rests against the frame. I had to make a shoulder since I wrapped the material around the sides. However, I upholstered everything in velvet, and the velvet sort of "pokes through" the fabric on this shoulder. My fix will be to simply remove a strip of velvet from the shoulder and paint it black. Just an FYI - most folks would never run into this issue.


----------



## elmalloc

yes curved should not be used without a lens..


great!


----------



## bfisherjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17986604
> 
> 
> thanks that makes sense. any pictures of your screen?
> 
> 
> I'm also CIH and I wonder if I should wait for his curved offerings...does the border help mask any pincoushining you may have - or are you not using an anamorphic lens?



Hi, here are some pictures .


Pincushioning was minimal - I expected a lot worse. To be honest, when the lights are off, you really can't see it. I have the image set to overscan slightly onto the frame and the black velvet sucks it up nicely (you can't see the light on it).


I considered going with a curved screen but decided against it:

- harder to mount. In my room, my screen floats (its not built into a false wall)


- I wanted room for a lot of people to watch movies/sports. Curved screen makes a smaller "perfect" seat. The flat screen makes it nice no matter where you sit.


- cost - I expect curved screens will cost more because it requires more work.


I do think however the curved screen looks cool and probably has a bit more wow factor than flat.


----------



## elmalloc

hi thanks for taking the time to upload pictures for me. looking wonderful son, now get off this forum and view it 5 hours a night!


----------



## kendo70433

Has anyone managed to add a SeymourAV screen to their Logitech Harmony remote? I can't find it in any of the pull-down menus.


And since I have had the remote for a while, Logitech has completely cut me off from support. My email has been blocked from even registering again. I was thinking of upgrading to the One. But if this is how they treat customers, I will shop for a different universal remote manufacturer.


Does the Seymour screen (with IR controller) use codes listed under a different manufacturer?


----------



## SteveHorn

Kendo, did you see the IR codes download on the Seymour web site? Towards the bottom of this link . I don't know anything about the Harmony, but maybe at RemoteCentral.com, someone knows of a way to program Pronto codes into a Harmony.


----------



## kendo70433

Logitech, at least when they had excellent customer service, would take such a spreadsheet and import it, even link it to one's account. Then one could log in and update their remote control. There is no way to program a Logitech remote control using just the spreadsheet. It has to be done through active Logitech intervention. And if they don't let me log on, I can't even report the interest.


Logitech could also set up a "device" in their database called SeymourAV with the commands in the spreadsheet. But they don't have any category called "Screen" so I don't know where I would find it in the database if they did import it. Maybe I'll set up a fake account with them and ask them to add the device.


----------



## elmalloc

who is the premier LCD screen remote manufacturer these days?


----------



## scottyb

RTI,

But they are expensive. More real world pricing I really like Universal Remote.


scott


----------



## Doug G

I just bought a Philips Pronto TSU9300 to replace my now 10 year old TSU2000 (monochrome) which was getting dim and a little flaky on the touch screen (to be expected after 10 years of daily use!) The form factor is very different with many more hard buttons, but I've gotten used to it and I *LOVE* it. I think I paid 5 bills for the original unit back in y2k and I just paid 1 more than that for this new one from B&H, but its worth every penny. Really bright color screen, lots of hard buttons, even programmed the dial control around the arrow pad to work my X10 lights (dim/bright) since I don't have a music server (which was the original target application but new firmware/sw just enabled it to be programmed for anything, not just catalog scrolling.) I have macros galore setup so even my 70 year old Dad can use anything in my media room so long as he can read the icons on the home screen (er, so long as he knows the screen has to be put down with the SeymourAV remote...DOH!) And I don't even make use of the java scripting support which can enable two way comm capability (not enabled in the 9300) for real-time feedback and status which makes it even more powerful for home automation/integration. It also has native Wifi support but I also currently don't use that (it really restricted to music server at this point I think.) The hardest decision to make was whether or not to spring for the 9400 or not, but in the end I decided I wanted a more compact remote since I tend to use it more in the traditional sense and several commented that the screen (same res but slightly smaller) was more vibrant so I went with the 9300 in the end.


I know this is really OT for this thread, but its horror stories like the one above which really make me wonder why anyone in their right mind would by a "programmable" universal remote when it has to be programmed by someone else?! WTF? Just buy a Pronto (even a used one), go to remotecentral.com and if there's an IR device, you can pretty much find the code you need. If not, just learn it! I can't ever see myself not owning a Pronto, they simply are too indispensable due to their unlimited flexibility and IR-blasting capabilities. The software has also gotten a lot better since v1.1!

*Pronto, there is no substitute.*









Current Philips Pronto lineup web site 


(Actually, I did mention SeymourAV in there so I guess it really wasn't that OT.....







)


----------



## SteveHorn

Looks like if the Logitech Harmony can learn IR sequences from another remote (bypassing the Logitech central database "functionality"), one approach would be to teach a Philips Pronto the Seymour codes, then use the Pronto to teach the Harmony. A long way around, but it should work. Do you know of someone close by that has a Pronto or other remote that can be taught IR sequences thru a software app similar to ProntoEdit? Plan B: I'll mail you an old Pronto I have, with the screen codes in it, you teach your Harmony, test it, and then send back the Pronto.


----------



## kendo70433

Steve,


That would be great if you are willing to do that. I don't know anyone here with a Pronto.


Ken


----------



## Outflying

Is there anyone in the Las Vegas area that would be kind enough to demo their AT Seymour Screen? I'm sure I could find a beer or a bottle of wine for you trouble...lol. THANKS!


----------



## SteveHorn

Kendo70433l

PM sent.

Steve


----------



## LotToLearn

Hi all.


I am thinking about changing the design of my theater, which will bring the screen a foot or 2 closer to the viewer.


Originally the viewing distance was 11', but with this change the viewing distance would be 10' or 9 1/2'.


Is 9 1/2' enough viewing distance so I won't see the pattern? I got a screen sample but will be a while before I get a projector to test (will be a Panasonic PT4000).


----------



## gimmepilotwings




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/17969567
> 
> 
> It's on the product plan for this year, *but masking panels first.*
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I'll probably be the 100th jerk to ask this, but do we know when this is going to be a reality and an approximate cost? I assume the cost will compare with Carada, correct?


I did a quick search.


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LotToLearn* /forum/post/18014666
> 
> 
> Hi all.
> 
> 
> I am thinking about changing the design of my theater, which will bring the screen a foot or 2 closer to the viewer.
> 
> 
> Originally the viewing distance was 11', but with this change the viewing distance would be 10' or 9 1/2'.
> 
> 
> Is 9 1/2' enough viewing distance so I won't see the pattern? I got a screen sample but will be a while before I get a projector to test (will be a Panasonic PT4000).



You're right on the edge.

The new material is better but still close.

Try shining a flashlight on the material from close and sit in your seat and see if you can see it.

You can always wait til you get the projector as Saymour's lead times are small. A week or so.


Scott


----------



## kendo70433

With Chris's help, I found what is probably the right Harmony Device to control the SeymourAV retractable screen. It's filed under:


Device

Home Appliance


Manufacturer

Electronic Solutions Inc.


Model

RP60AU


When I get the screen installed, I'll test it and report success. (How's that for optimism?)


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/18022600
> 
> 
> With Chris's help, I found what is probably the right Harmony Device to control the SeymourAV retractable screen. It's filed under:
> 
> 
> Device
> 
> Home Appliance
> 
> 
> Manufacturer
> 
> Electronic Solutions Inc.
> 
> 
> Model
> 
> RP60AU
> 
> 
> When I get the screen installed, I'll test it and report success. (How's that for optimism?)



Is this just the standard motor or the somfy motor control?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gimmepilotwings* /forum/post/18014940
> 
> 
> I'll probably be the 100th jerk to ask this, but do we know when this is going to be a reality and an approximate cost? I assume the cost will compare with Carada, correct?
> 
> 
> I did a quick search.



They'll be fixed, insertable panels, not the motorized type like Carada. I don't have pricing established. I have extrusion drawings out for review, so it's still a bit early. Hopefully out by April?


Motorized masking is not currently in the plan.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/18022666
> 
> 
> Is this just the standard motor or the somfy motor control?



The standard Gen4 motor controllers. The Somfy motors can also be found in "Appliance", vendor "Somfy."


BTW, I'm dropping Somfy, as they just don't justify themselves currently. Maybe if they included a bottle of nice French wine with every motor. I'll still maintain availability of parts and accessories, however.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/18022600
> 
> 
> With Chris's help, I found what is probably the right Harmony Device to control the SeymourAV retractable screen. It's filed under:
> 
> 
> Device
> 
> Home Appliance
> 
> 
> Manufacturer
> 
> Electronic Solutions Inc.
> 
> 
> Model
> 
> RP60AU
> 
> 
> When I get the screen installed, I'll test it and report success. (How's that for optimism?)



Appears to not work. I tried it tonight. The rp60au was available, but didn't do anything at all.


Any suggestions Chris?


Would it be possible for you to send the information to Harmony to add to their existing codes?


EDIT: I forgot to ask, is the remote that comes with the standard motor RF or infrared? I couldn't "learn" the code with the Harmony remote.


----------



## kendo70433

I have a customer support case open with Logitech right now to explicitly add the SeymourAV device to their database. I sent them both the Pronto file that's on Chris's web site and an excel spreadsheet of the codes that I think I got from here. I'll let you know when they declare success. It should be in the next day or two. But my screen isn't installed yet. So if someone could test it then, I could let Logitech know it's all set.


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kendo70433* /forum/post/18024966
> 
> 
> I have a customer support case open with Logitech right now to explicitly add the SeymourAV device to their database. I sent them both the Pronto file that's on Chris's web site and an excel spreadsheet of the codes that I think I got from here. I'll let you know when they declare success. It should be in the next day or two. But my screen isn't installed yet. So if someone could test it then, I could let Logitech know it's all set.



I tested it today on a harmony 1000. No go.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/18025029
> 
> 
> I tested it today on a harmony 1000. No go.



P -


You have the RF-only controlled motor. To my knowledge, no universal anywhere can learn RF protocols from other manufacturer's product. They only mention RF because they USE RF as a medium to broadcast their codes, but have to finalize in either IR or relay control.


You would need a 4-wire motor and the external control box. With that box, you can control the screen many different ways. Add an IR sensor, 12Vdc trigger input, use the dry contacts directly off momentary contact relays, etc. If you wanted to retract the screen from your iPhone while at the office, you can.


I know it'll work with the Harmony because that's what I used at CEDIA for two years. Let's see what Kendo ends up doing and if what I remembered is correct. If not, I'll dig out my 1000 and see what I did.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18026099
> 
> 
> P -
> 
> 
> You have the RF-only controlled motor. To my knowledge, no universal anywhere can learn RF protocols from other manufacturer's product. They only mention RF because they USE RF as a medium to broadcast their codes, but have to finalize in either IR or relay control.
> 
> 
> You would need a 4-wire motor and the external control box. With that box, you can control the screen many different ways. Add an IR sensor, 12Vdc trigger input, use the dry contacts directly off momentary contact relays, etc. If you wanted to retract the screen from your iPhone while at the office, you can.
> 
> 
> I know it'll work with the Harmony because that's what I used at CEDIA for two years. Let's see what Kendo ends up doing and if what I remembered is correct. If not, I'll dig out my 1000 and see what I did.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



So there is no way for the Harmony to get the codes? I am using RF to control my Oppo and Dish box, but those codes are in the Harmony software.


Is there a work around somehow?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/18026208
> 
> 
> So there is no way for the Harmony to get the codes? I am using RF to control my Oppo and Dish box, but those codes are in the Harmony software.
> 
> 
> Is there a work around somehow?



You're either using the RF-to-IR repeater to control your Oppo and Dish box, or simultaneously blasting out IR from the remote. You aren't solely using RF to control them.


RF uses different frequency channels and protocols to identify signal types and is to my knowledge unlearn-able from universals.


IR is just strings of simple HEX codes, which are easily programmable.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Doug G

Chris - following up on my email from a couple days ago, is the motor field replaceable to add the 4W/control box needed for IR? If so, would you give some kind of credit towards the RF only motor?


I'm almost positive the answers are "no" and "no" but I wanted to ask anyway....


Thanks!


----------



## chriscmore

Hey Doug -


Sorry for not bouncing back on the email, but here is as good a place as any.


The motors are not field replaceable. I've had one guy that had enough expertise/handiness that replaced it with my step-by-step guidance, but early on I chose to avoid some design compromises (cost, complexity, longer case penalty/ reduced cable angle, etc.) that a replaceable motor kit would have needed.


So the costs associated with a motorectemy involve shipping and the motor itself. We don't charge for any service labor (playing with these things is oddly enjoyable), but the unavoidable motor and shipping can be costly.


Cheers,

Chris



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Doug G* /forum/post/18028256
> 
> 
> Chris - following up on my email from a couple days ago, is the motor field replaceable to add the 4W/control box needed for IR? If so, would you give some kind of credit towards the RF only motor?
> 
> 
> I'm almost positive the answers are "no" and "no" but I wanted to ask anyway....
> 
> 
> Thanks!


----------



## SteveHorn

I've got my Pronto 1000 programmed with the XLS codes (the "all channels" version). I'd like to test it before I send it to the other end of the CONUS for Kendo to use to try to teach his Harmony. Anyone with a motorized Center Stage in/around/near B'ham ALA?


(Chris: I always thought Somfy stuff was overpriced. Been looking for motorized mini-blind controls for years but never found anything reasonably priced enough to want to deploy a house full of the things. Even started to design my own. May get back to it someday. Now there's a niche business...)


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> They'll be fixed, insertable panels, not the motorized type like Carada. I don't have pricing established. I have extrusion drawings out for review, so it's still a bit early. Hopefully out by April?



Chris, presumably, the masking will be backward compatible to existing fixed Center Stage frames?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/18037437
> 
> 
> Chris, presumably, the masking will be backward compatible to existing fixed Center Stage frames?



That's a top priority.


----------



## ggallaway

Chris,


Do you anticipate the panels working with a 2.4:1 screen? I know you sell 2.35:1 but would the panels work for 2.4 also?


g


----------



## elmalloc

Thank you Chris for making AT-CIH affordable


----------



## rolette




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18040704
> 
> 
> That's a top priority.



Ooooo... *definitely* interested in this when it comes out!


Jay


----------



## chriscmore

There will be tons of 3D tutorials and continued over-exposure, but I thought I'd put out a couple basic facts since I've been getting some questions about it. I sat through a lot of 3D demos, some good, some terrible at CES and sat down with some of the influential technologists from the projector companies to better understand where they're headed. The short answer is they really don't know, as it was one giant coming-out 3D party and many of the ladies were wearing the same outfits.


Active-shutter glasses, where your glasses share an IR link to a synchronizer, blinking imperceptibly on and off with the screen's L/R image, were only on display using high-refresh rate flat panels. What we know, however, is that when it's adopted into front projection technology, these full-field sequential methods will work with any projection screen, ours included. This technology doesn't depend on the screen, but rather the ability of the projector to display 2x the frame rate and the glasses ability to sync. For content that was intended or rendered for 3D (gaming, animation), it was often very clean and compelling.


The few front-projector demos at CES were using a different, multi-projector, passive polarization method. These don't work sequentially, but rather throw both L/R images simultaneously and depend on the screen to maintain polarity to properly get filtered at the glasses. One demo admitted to using different polarization methods at the projector (circular) than at the glasses. They need to use silver screens of a specific design for use with 3D. One of these screens' coating was so delicate that even though it was retractable, they said it's basically ruined after a couple rolls. In the best demos, this method could look clean, but generally had much more ghosting, off-axis nonuniformity, structure collapse or inversion than the active-shutter method. LG was showing a single-projector 3D box, but it's basically two projectors inside one box and also depends on maintaining perfect polarity of the image, even after it's bounced off the screen. So, they correctly pointed out that a specially coated silver screen would be required. It could sometimes look "right," but I had the feeling that it was so rigged it was like sitting through a Bose demo.


You'll get tons of press on you about it, and while it's gimmicky and sometimes compelling, it's still a ways off from practicality for projected images.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## SteveHorn

Chris, good stuff on 3D. Thanks!


I have done some reading on 3D technologies - from red&blue glasses to polarization to 1080Px2 dynamic. Since I'm on the verge of front projector and screen purchase I'm concerned about obsolescence. But I suspect it will be several years before the proj makers can deliver a product that "sticks". And frankly, I'm not sure whether I'd enjoy the 3D experience enough - assuming a good application of the technology (i.e. active shutter glasses) to justify the wait or the $ required. I need to go see Avatar. But all my 3D rattling on is OT for this subforum - sorry.


----------



## elmalloc

Avatar is a good movie and to me, IMO, caused the industry to rattle with 3D. Nothing before it (in 3D) has been that good - and again IMO, I don't see necessitation for 3D in video just because of Avatar.


Avatar's real life scenes were atrocious in 3D! I've seen it 3 times and I still hate the real life 3D scenes. Star Wars in 3D is going to be *terrible.* 3D "works" for animation!


You can never be on the edge of technology. Even if you purchased state of the art 3D, within a year you are out of date.


I have a preprocessor that can only do DTS lossless but not Dolby True HD, for instance.


Sorry for OT, but I hate 3D right now.


-ELmO


----------



## mlbrand

Chris,


Great synopsis on 3D at CES. It's nice to hear from someone knowledgeable like you about what is really going on with this new technology. I have a feeling it is going to be a long time before 3D is widely adopted. Most of the people I know finally upgraded to a flat screen HDTV just this past year, and they aren't ready to toss out the LCD/Plasma just yet.


----------



## Gig103




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18023031
> 
> 
> They'll be fixed, insertable panels, not the motorized type like Carada. I don't have pricing established. I have extrusion drawings out for review, so it's still a bit early. Hopefully out by April?



I'm glad to hear that you are working on this and that it will be backwards compatible!! Can't wait to see what you come up with.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ggallaway* /forum/post/18042651
> 
> 
> Do you anticipate the panels working with a 2.4:1 screen? I know you sell 2.35:1 but would the panels work for 2.4 also?



This is a good point, will they be customizable like the screen? I have a 2.37:1 screen.


----------



## deromax

My home built 109 inches 2.35 screen is absolutely fantastic! I sit at a tad less than 10 feet, the material texture is just slightly visible when there are large patch of pale image and the camera pans, but I'll take texture over the glossy screen of a pannel type TV anytime!


Thanks Chris for the top notch service and great pricing!


----------



## mjg100

I took my existing 106" Elunevision frame and attached Center Stage XD material to it. The Elunevision frame was a pretty good frame, nice and rigid. I also built a mechanical masking system for my screen. Works fantastic. Would have had to pay thousands to get a manufactured mechanically masking screen. Here is a picture that shows the lower masking panel. The masking panel has a metal edge that returns to the screen so there is never a shadow.








[/IMG]


Masking system uses cables, pulleys and a shaft mounted in pillow block bearing. Panels move together in opposite directions and they stay level as they move. Best of all I have less than $120 in the masking system, but I did have several of the items on hand.


----------



## elmalloc

is that a DIy sub


----------



## Gig103

Hey Chris, this was just said over in the SMX section:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/18079520
> 
> 
> The SeymourAV needs EQ so I avoided it.



I was just wondering if this is misinformation or not?


----------



## scottyb

Yes this is misinformation.

I've used and am using the Seymour AV screen and it sounds great(and looks good to boot).

Who posted it, Rueben? JK


----------



## TBrooke

I have Xd material that I am using on a DIY screen and I am thinking of getting a Panny Ae4000U. I've this projector won't produce moire. It would be a lot of trouble to go back and tile my screen.


Can I get by without tilt?


Tom


----------



## deromax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TBrooke* /forum/post/18089177
> 
> 
> I have Xd material that I am using on a DIY screen and I am thinking of getting a Panny Ae4000U. I've this projector won't produce moire. It would be a lot of trouble to go back and tile my screen.
> 
> 
> Can I get by without tilt?
> 
> 
> Tom



The 4000 doesn't have a visible pixel pattern, but if you have enough spare material, I'd say tilt ts anyway. I did, maybe 8-10 degrees of tilt and like to think it's better and safer than without tilt!


----------



## scottyb

It sounds like he already built his screen and needs to know if the Panny will cause moire.

I don't think anyone can tell you unless they have the same size screen and distance. Different pixel alignment will produce different results.

My guess is you would be fine since Panny has "Smooth Sceen" but you never know until you try.


scott


----------



## Anthony A.

anyone here use a frame with the spline type method to stretch the material? im looking for any suggestions as to whether or not it would be possible to mount the screen marterial onto the frame if it is already fastened to the wall or if it must be assembled first on the floor and then hung on the wall. any opinions/suggestions welcomed. thanks.


----------



## LotToLearn

I hung the sample material in front of my false wall (finished painted flat black), stood back 11 feet and lit up a work light 1000w in front of me (10 feet from the sample).


I was able to see the pattern so I am very concerned if this screen will work for me. Is this a valid test?


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LotToLearn* /forum/post/18090131
> 
> 
> I hung the sample material in front of my false wall (finished painted flat black), stood back 11 feet and lit up a work light 1000w in front of me (10 feet from the sample).
> 
> 
> I was able to see the pattern so I am very concerned if this screen will work for me. Is this a valid test?



When you find a projector as bright as a 1000 Watt light bulb buy as many as you can as you'll be able to make a mint.










No this is not a valid test.

I would get the projector you are looking at and get it home, then test it against the material. This is the only way you will know.

From 11 ft I doubt you will see texture.


Scott


----------



## groveb

Is there any update on a masking option for 2.35 to 16:9 ?


----------



## Colin Goddard




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax* /forum/post/18089206
> 
> 
> The 4000 doesn't have a visible pixel pattern, but if you have enough spare material, I'd say tilt ts anyway. I did, maybe 8-10 degrees of tilt and like to think it's better and safer than without tilt!



I'm getting an Epson 8100 next week. Do you know if the Epson projectors have a visible pixel pattern? My throw distance is about 14'-0" with seating distance at 12'-6". Yea the projector is directly behind our seating but the room configuration doesn't allow a different set up. The projector will be ceiling or shelf mounted. This is my first projector. I just started looking at all the threads here today and there is alot to learn. The "sticky" thread for diy screens is a must read!! Very informative! Thanks........


I forgot to add this is a dedicated ht room with 90% of ambient light blocked. I'm looking for a 106 inch 16x9 screen. Your thoughts on screen size and format are also appreciated. 60% movies and 40% sports..


----------



## deromax

I have read that the Epson have a very distinct pixels pattern visibility but have not seen this projector image myself. I'd bet it won't be a problem at viewing distance but projection material tilting is definitively needed.


----------



## Colin Goddard




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax* /forum/post/18134342
> 
> 
> I have read that the Epson have a very distinct pixels pattern visibility but have not seen this projector image myself. I'd bet it won't be a problem at viewing distance but projection material tilting is definitively needed.



Thanks deromax. I spoke to a center stage rep. and he was sending me a material sample. He did mention something about a tilt cut.


Does anyone have an Epson 8100 and used the center stage material for there screen? Your impressions are appreciated.......


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gig103* /forum/post/18080511
> 
> 
> Hey Chris, this was just said over in the SMX section:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by erkq
> 
> The SeymourAV needs EQ so I avoided it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just wondering if this is misinformation or not?
Click to expand...


If he meant what he posted it is misinformation. It's more likely just fanboy ignorance.


The Center Stage XD does not need EQ, as it's acoustic attenuation is very slight and only in the top octave. Most processors struggle to measure the difference.


The only AT screen that measures more acoustically transparent than ours is the Screen Excellence's Enlightor 2. I would therefore happily put the Center Stage XD's measurements against any other AT in the world.


In fact, below is a translated link to a user's testing of our previous and current XD material up against Screen Excellence's. The results start at post 84, and are an unrealistically unsmoothed 1/24th octave resolution. Keep in mind that the speaker's frequency response is already subtracted out, so 90dB=0dBA. Also, watch that he measured it up to 40kHz, also unrealistically high, but respectably obsessive.

*Now after seeing these, tell me where the EQ is "needed?"*

User "Ludvig_S" at component.se - his acoustic measurements 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LotToLearn* /forum/post/18090131
> 
> 
> I hung the sample material in front of my false wall (finished painted flat black), stood back 11 feet and lit up a work light 1000w in front of me (10 feet from the sample).
> 
> 
> I was able to see the pattern so I am very concerned if this screen will work for me. Is this a valid test?



You're at about the threshold where you can see the pattern if a) you are watching all-white video content, and b) you have nothing to look at but the texture. Try watching some video on it to see how realistically visible it is with mixed content.


We demonstrated the material at CEDIA at 9 feet, but I do like to get 12 feet or more back when possible.


If it's still no-go, you should consider Screen Excellence's 4K material.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *groveb* /forum/post/18126351
> 
> 
> Is there any update on a masking option for 2.35 to 16:9 ?



We're currently waiting on the extrusion tooling, bringing in prototype components, and testing acoustically transparent masking materials.


Guessing April? It's difficult to tell until I start seeing results...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## groveb

Chris,


Thanks for the update. I hadn't thought about the need for acoustically transparent masking materials.


I am 10 days away from getting a projector and then a couple of weeks to play with room placement, then I will be ready to purchase a fixed screen from you.


----------



## SteveHorn

LotToLearn,

For further info to stir into your decision, see my posting on page 24 of my Q&D comparison of XD to Screen Excellence Enlightor 2 and 4K materials. Suggest you do as Chris suggested and use his sample as well as those that Screen Excellence will be happy to send you to compare. And by all means watch some real source material - HDTV, B-D movies, whatever. Even if you have to get your chosen projector (or borrow one) before you make a screen purchase.


----------



## amillians

Chris,


I'm looking to pull the trigger on a 105" width 2.35 fixed screen setup with you (44.6" x 105" screen area), but wanted to learn a bit more about my install options with a false screen wall.


I've searched far and wide (well, maybe near and narrow) and can't find schematics on the specifics of the french cleat bracket mounting method (e.g., use one or two cleats for a 105" width screen?, where exactly on the top back edge of the frame do they go?, etc.). I thought I'd ask here to help others who are mechanically challenged.


I will have a further logistical challenge--owing to room width/height--of getting behind the false wall once the screen is up. In the past (wider room, Stewart Microperf aperture-mount screen in a false wall, screwed in top and bottom), I went with removable GoM panels to the left/right of the screen to access behind the wall, but that's not an option here. Small room = hard to get behind the screen wall. If I did the "normal" aperture mount this time around, getting the screen down to gain access to the cavity would be a major pain, unless I'm missing something.


So I was thinking of building a false wall that allowed me to "hang" the screen using the french cleat(s) via a horizontal 2x4, with a framed "hole" the size of the screen surface (e.g., 44.6" x 105"), allowing the screen frame bottom (and sides) to rest against the framing of the false wall. To gain access to the screen wall cavity (to mess with a sub, etc.), I would then "un-hang" the screen like a picture and temporarily move it, crawling through the 44.6" x 105" framed hole in the false wall. When done, re-hang and off to the races.


I would have permanent miniframes of GoM mounted around the screen placement area, such that when the screen is hanging, it looks like one black fabric wall (i.e., the depth of the miniframes would be equal to the depth of the hung screen on the "wall").


A (sad) picture of my thoughts. On the left, front view. On the right, side view. Yellow boxes are the cleats, and the basis of my question(s): Where would these go on the frame/framing? Is this a stupid idea?


----------



## Dragon Reborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amillians* /forum/post/18152047
> 
> 
> A (sad) picture of my thoughts. On the left, front view. On the right, side view. Yellow boxes are the cleats, and the basis of my question(s): Where would these go on the frame/framing? Is this a stupid idea?



Your design and intent is nearly the same as what I did for my wall.


But for your GOM around the screen, you'll need to have a *removable* top panel so that you _can_ hang it. The wall mounting cleat connects with the top edge of the frame.


In my case, I had to have my bottom panels removable too, because when I hung the Seymour screen on the wall, the bottom of the screen frame would not lie flat against the wall and it stuck out about an inch. So, I used an extra black loop-thingy (that Chris provides) and "anchored" the frame to a bottom 2x4 this way.


Here's my wall with bookshelf speakers. You can see the cleat in the middle at the top attached to a doubled 2x4 horizontal piece. (in my initial HT design in 2006, the top horizontal 2x4 is there as a possible center channel speaker placement for a non-AT screen. Luckily, it happened to be at the proper height for my AT screen upgrade)










Here's the 100" screen on the wall.










Here's my re-worked framing when I decided to change to floorstanding Paradigms. Note, the top horizontal cleat is just out of the picture frame, and only 4 vertical 2x4s (1 in each corner and 2 in the middle) are used for the screen and wall panels.










As a result, "... when the screen is hanging, it looks like one black fabric wall (i.e., the depth of the miniframes would be equal to the depth of the hung screen on the "wall"). Which is *exactly* what I did as my panels are 1.5" deep.


----------



## amillians

Dragon,


Thanks for the feedback/tips. I was having a hard timing wrapping my head around how the screen sat in the cleat on the wall in relationship to the top edge of the frame. Pictures do help, don't they?


In talking through everything out loud, the carpenter thinks he can pull off a stable aperture mount that would allow me to access behind the screen by relying on a single under-the-screen removable panel. I just have to lay off the donuts for a bit.










So, I can create a shallow shadow box effect and have a pretty secure mounting solution. Time will tell!


P.S. Chris, when I order in a few days, this is going to be an aperture mount. You can school me on what bolts would work best. I ended up using a lot of shims with the old Stewart install.


----------



## deromax

A quick question : My Seymour material has begun to slightly sag, it got somewhat lose at the bottom of my screen. It was previously tight and straight. Do you think it really has stretched or maybe my wooden frame has shrinked? It's made of new 5 inches wood planks. Pics of the frame :



















The screen is 2.35, 109 inches diag.


Appart from this minor issue, I'm very satisfied, the picture is great and the sound coming from the screen is invaluable and the only serious way to setup a great HT!


Thanks!


----------



## DMan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax* /forum/post/18163678
> 
> 
> A quick question : My Seymour material has begun to slightly sag, it got somewhat lose at the bottom of my screen. It was previously tight and straight. Do you think it really has stretched or maybe my wooden frame has shrinked? It's made of new 5 inches wood planks.



Best advice I can give you is to ditch those "L" brackets on the back of your screen frame and use a Kreg Jig to make some pocket holes and join each piece of wood together with wood screws. It will make the frame 10x more rigid.


----------



## Milt99

Actually, gussets glued and screwed would probably be a easier and stronger alternative to the Kreg given the material you have for the frame.

Since you haven't stated how you're tensioning the material to the frame this is a guess but it's likely that your tensioning is uneven and has loosen given your description as a "sag". Or your frame has racked due to the tension.

Have you put a framing squaring on all four corners to check for it?

Since the XD material is more of unidirectional weave especially with the tilt, tensioning with a home-made system can be a real ***** to get even.

The Phifer sheerweave is much more of a simple 90 degree weave and is a lot easier to get the tension even.

I speak with some experience on the above as I adapted my Carada frame for the original SMX and now for the XD.

My homegrown tensioning approach is fairly straight-forward and secure but getting it right with the XD was far more time consuming than with the SMX.

If had it to do over I would have paid for the material with the factory tensioning built-in.

IMO, wooden screen frames are problematic with woven AT material unless you've got some tools to insure a square, flat and rigid frame and use the proper lumber.

Just my 5 cents.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amillians* /forum/post/18152047
> 
> 
> (e.g., use one or two cleats for a 105" width screen?, where exactly on the top back edge of the frame do they go?, etc.)



Image Widths:

*


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax* /forum/post/18163678
> 
> 
> Do you think it really has stretched or maybe my wooden frame has shrinked? It's made of new 5 inches wood planks.
> 
> The screen is 2.35, 109 inches diag.



Hi Deromax -


Your (new) lumber has likely shrunk, as all new lumber does, especially in the low-humidity winter months. Then, any static tension you had with the staples would have relaxed with the shrinkage, resulting in the sag you see.


In addition to the pointers on ways of increasing the rigidity of your frame that others pointed out, another thing to consider is that you can use frame-sag to your advantage. Consider losing the 1/3 and 2/3 vertical supports and hanging the frame by the top horizontal member only. Then, the weight of the assembly will provide a constant downward, or stretching tension force across the screen. This can of course become excessive and uneven, but in moderation can keep a stapled screen tensioned.


As milt points out, a full perimeter of O-rings would have made dimensional change a non-issue, but since hindsight is usually annoying, I won't bring it up.


There are lots of stapled screens out there, so no worries... you're close!


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18164623
> 
> 
> As milt points out, a full perimeter of O-rings would have made dimensional change a non-issue, but since hindsight is usually annoying, I won't bring it up.



That was annoying.


----------



## amillians

Chris, thanks for the cleat feedback. Order coming your way latter today (or tomorrow, crazy day ahead).


----------



## adammb

I currently have a DIY screen made with SMX material first gen and was thinking of making a bigger screen and noticed that Seymour is listing a higher gain on their material which would be nice. Has anyone compared the SMX material to the new Seymour material and how does it perform?


----------



## Colin Goddard




chriscmore said:


> Hi Deromax -
> 
> 
> Your (new) lumber has likely shrunk, as all new lumber does, especially in the low-humidity winter months. Then, any static tension you had with the staples would have relaxed with the shrinkage, resulting in the sag you see.
> 
> 
> Deromax,
> 
> 
> I totally agree with Chris statement above. I'm also learning the diy screen method, but one thing I do know is wood movement. Once you have the lumber at home, especially during the winter heating season here in northeast Ohio and other similar climates, the heat from your furnace removes moisture from the wood and it shrinks. Also if you are going to retry your wood frame screen use 1single brace which is called an "L" brace for the outside corners of your screen ,and a "T" brace for when the inside vertical framing of your screen meets the horizonal framing. These brackets are normally 1 inch in width and about 4 inches in lenght. Pre drill your screw holes for these braces to avoid spitting of the wood. IMO, the braces you used to connect your screen frame together were too small for a solid connection. Not to critisize, just here to help. Hope that makes sense?
> 
> 
> Kregg pocket hole jiggs are excellent for this type of framing, also biscuit joining , but if you are only using these accesories for one time only for this project, they are not worth the investment unless you borrow them from a freind......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, Seymour AV has a nice diy page for us


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

Been working on a design for my screen frame and masking for use with my XD screen. Any input is welcome.

THREAD IS HERE


----------



## clubguy

Just finished installing my 100" retractable 16:9 XD screen and it works great and the picture looks fantastic. Chris was a big help along the way and I am really glad that I took his advice on going with a larger screen size. I am using a Panasonic 4000 projector with the trigger off the projector to lower and raise the screen automatically.


Thanks Chris.


----------



## ggallaway

Chris,


Any news on the masking and whether it will be customizable, ie 2.4:1 CIH


Thanks,


G


----------



## Anthony A.

i would also like to know if it will be available in horizontal 16:9, or just CIH.


in regards to the xd material that i purchased not too long ago, i bought a steel frame with a spline type installation. do you think i can attach the steel frame to the wall first and then put the screen material up or will it be too difficult to get it tensioned without it being flat on the floor?


----------



## deromax

Hello all and thanks for all the suggestions, advices and comments on my canvas sag issue! The sag has somewhat stabilized so I'll keep the screen as is for the moment.


I may actually do another complete screen from scratch as this one, beside being dimensionnally unstable, is slightly undersized for my projection distance. This is not a misscalculation on my part! I discovered that ceiling mounting for my projector is problematic in my place, so reverted to plan B with the projector on a rear wall shelf. Even at maximum zoom, I have about 4% of overscan top and bottom with 1.85:1 movies.


Do you think plywood cut in 6 inches slices and doubled at corners would made for a more stable material than new pine planks?


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony A.* /forum/post/18277735
> 
> 
> i would also like to know if it will be available in horizontal 16:9, or just CIH.
> 
> 
> in regards to the xd material that i purchased not too long ago, i bought a steel frame with a spline type installation. do you think i can attach the steel frame to the wall first and then put the screen material up or will it be too difficult to get it tensioned without it being flat on the floor?



I've worked with splining material before and it's not alway easy to get it right the first go around. It might get old trying to do it on the wall. On the other hand it might be easier to start at the top middle and then pull down on the material to get it taut.


How hard would it be to take your screen down if on the wall doesn't work?


scott


----------



## Kaisand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adammb* /forum/post/18166278
> 
> 
> I currently have a DIY screen made with SMX material first gen and was thinking of making a bigger screen and noticed that Seymour is listing a higher gain on their material which would be nice. Has anyone compared the SMX material to the new Seymour material and how does it perform?



You can order a free 8 1/2 *11 inch fabric sample of the SeymourAV material or you can get a 24*24 inch sample for $20.00 if I remember correctly. I would recommend at least getting the free sample if not the bigger size if you are unsure.


----------



## groveb

Just a quick note to say that my new Seymour AV 120 2.35 fixed screen has arrived and it is currently in a temp. install and I could not be happier. The design and quality of the screen is top notch. When I was putting it together I mentioned to my wife that I could have just bought the material and made a frame myself and her comment was that she wanted something that would look professional and not fall apart in a few years !


For those on the fence about a AT screen or Seymour AV you will be very happy with this product.


Now just waiting for the masking option........................


----------



## Montezuma213

Hey guys, Im really interested in this material, but have a few questions. I cant seem to find if they sell different gains of it. I ask because I watch Tv in a room with some Ambient light in the backgrund, and dark scenes are a little hard to see. (that and I run it on eco-mode) Anyway I am just using Black out cloth for now, and want to upgrade. Im ordering a sample this week to compare..


Any advice would be apprecited.


Fred


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Montezuma213* /forum/post/18296327
> 
> 
> Hey guys, Im really interested in this material, but have a few questions. I cant seem to find if they sell different gains of it. I ask because I watch Tv in a room with some Ambient light in the backgrund, and dark scenes are a little hard to see. (that and I run it on eco-mode) Anyway I am just using Black out cloth for now, and want to upgrade. Im ordering a sample this week to compare..
> 
> 
> Any advice would be apprecited.
> 
> 
> Fred



I believe the advertised gain spec for the Center Stage XD material is 1.2, however I am not sure what it truly measures in actuality. This screen material seems to be only available in the 1.2 gain, what you see is what you get.


Maybe Chris of Seymour will chime in on the gain.



...Glenn


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ggallaway* /forum/post/18274387
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Any news on the masking and whether it will be customizable, ie 2.4:1 CIH
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> G



Hi G -


No "news" yet. I'm finalizing on what material to use for the masking panels, since it's a new issue: maximizing direct light absorption while maintaining AT. I should have that finalized soon and then it's just getting in the rest of the custom parts (the extrusion is taking the longest) and seeing how it goes together.


We'll have them customizable from any CIH size, ratio start, and ratio masked.


Anthony -


We'll be doing CIW 16:9 panels, too. All the parts we're using should work for those as well, but since it's a harder physical problem, there are a couple additional features that have to work first. Hopefully they'll be available very soon afterwards. (Ideally at the same time - I'm just a skeptic until I see it happen)


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax* /forum/post/18281692
> 
> 
> Do you think plywood cut in 6 inches slices and doubled at corners would made for a more stable material than new pine planks?



I do. Plywood is more stable than solid natural wood. If you wanted to double or triple it throughout the frame, then you wouldn't need to have it be 6 inches wide. If it doesn't cause an acoustic problem for you, great, but most applications would like to get enough rigidity in a 2.5" to 3.5" wide frame.


Now that you're had a practice screen, you should be quite skilled at the next...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## edfowler

Just ordered my second screen from Chris today (can you say happy customer?)


This time I'm going 11' wide 16x9 aspect instead of the 10' wide 2.35 in the upstairs theater.


I'm not replacing the first one, I liked my theater so much I just built another one in the barn for the kids to have PS3/Xbox/Wii/movies parties with.


I've also shared Seymour with some of my friends and they are going to go with the XD as soon as their theaters are done.


Well done Chris!


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18297546
> 
> 
> Hi G -
> 
> 
> No "news" yet. I'm finalizing on what material to use for the masking panels, since it's a new issue: maximizing direct light absorption while maintaining AT.




Don't suppose that their is any chace you could let us know what material you end up finding to be the best for masking. I ask because I am making my own masking system because I want it motorized. My plan is to use the normal GOM material but something blacker would be nice.... Plus I don't know how the AT properties are going through your Black Backing, Center Stage, then GOM.


----------



## jimmythejet

Hi everyone,


I've been lurking here for a while trying to find out a bit more information about AT screens. I believe I will be purchasing a SeymourAV screen, but haven't yet decided if I'm going with the fixed frame (Center Stage XD) or DIY.


However, I have two questions, one for Chris and one for Canadian clients of Chris:


1. When I did a dry run test on buying a screen from your store on the seymourAV.com website, I found that there wasn't the option to pick "Canada" as a shipping destination. Obviously from this forum, some Canadian's have purchased from you. Just wondering what I should do.


2. For Canadians who have bought SeymourAV screens or DIY screen materials, what kinds of duties / brokerage fees were you paying on them to get them through Customs? And who was the shipper?


Thanks in advance!


Jimmy The Jet


----------



## deromax

I bought bulk material and built the frame myself. To order from Canada, send a private message to Chris using the form on their website detailing what you want, and Chris will return a quote. If you decide to proceed, you will be sent a Google invoice and it's where you make the payment. You can also just make a Paypal paiment.


Really simple!


As for duty, probably because the material is marked as "Country of origin : USA", the shipper didn't charged duty. I don't remember paying taxes either.


----------



## Colin Goddard

Hey Chris,


I finally completed my Center Stage XD diy screen 106 inch diagonal. Using the diy directions from your website I was very happy with the end results! I also used black velvet from Jo Ann fabrics for the border cover. Nice!


Our seating is about 13 feet from the screen and to my eyes, and the wifes, the picture is excellent! I was concerned at first we may see the weave in the screen material but that isn't a worry anymore. Our projector is an Epson 8100.


And to be able to locate all of my speakers behind the screen is the icing on da cake! There is a 3 feet deep opening behind the screen were I placed my Onix 550 Rockets, Big Foot center and a SVS 16-46 subwoofer. I needed no adjustments to the treble, bass ect..


I have only 7'-2'' ceilings in my room and with my previous set up, a 65 inch rptv I only had 2 options for a center channel. Above or below the display. This has annoyed me for years. The center channel never came from the "center" of the screen. It was easy to locate probably due to the low ceiling height. And the acoustics in my room are very good except for the ceiling height. I have Kinectics sound panels covering most of the walls.


The end result of this diy project has left me with a big smile! Excellent picture with a very powerfull and detailed sound coming from the screen. Even the wife is bringing her freinds over to see and hear it. As you can tell we are very happy campers. Thanks!................


----------



## jimmythejet

Thanks for responding, deromax!


Nice theatre, too! I just put in my order for a PT-AE4000U, and am looking forward to having a big screen again. How are you liking yours?


Had to sell the old house, and the buyer wouldn't buy it without me leaving the whole theatre (components, furniture, etc.) behind. The only thing I escaped with was the popcorn maker.


----------



## deromax

Having the front speakers out of sight enhance the theater effect to the greatest point and I cannot imagine things any other way! I can't understand why someone would put good work and money into a home theater, fine equipment and furniture, acoustics, etc, and then use a normal projection screen flanked by two proeminent tower speakers, with an horizontal center speaker below. Having an equipment rack under the screen with all their lights and displays in plain sight is even more sad, imho! If you want to show off your gear, find another way to do it than front-stage!










But I disgress.


----------



## scottyb

Hey Jimmy,


Sent you a PM.


Scott


----------



## kendo70433




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Montezuma213* /forum/post/18296327
> 
> 
> Hey guys, Im really interested in this material, but have a few questions. I cant seem to find if they sell different gains of it. I ask because I watch Tv in a room with some Ambient light in the backgrund, and dark scenes are a little hard to see. ... Anyway I am just using Black out cloth for now, and want to upgrade. Im ordering a sample this week to compare..
> 
> 
> Any advice would be apprecited.
> 
> 
> Fred



Before I got the XD screen, I was using Dazian's CCC cloth. It's supposed to have a gain of around 1, if I remember right. My room has some ambient light. Chris's XD screen made a clearly noticeable difference. Bright sections, like light reflected off surfaces in a scene, were very bright, as I'd expect in real life. Of course it was dimmer than real life







but it noticeably increased the realism. I was very pleased with the new screen.


~Ken


----------



## rspaton

Chris,

I received my 120" fixed frame CenterStage XT a couple weeks ago and finally got around to assembling and mounting it this past weekend. The assembly and mounting process was a piece of cake and the end result was beyond all my expectations.


I have it mounted flush on the wall covering three inwall Triad speakers I picked up on ebay. I was also fortunate enough to aquire a slightly used JVC projector. The three dimensional image and sound is nothing short of amazing. At my primary seating position, 12 feet back the fabric weave/grain is completely invisible and the speakers sound like they are in out in front of the screen - crystal clear! Surrounded by sound with invisible speakers and a huge image is simply magic. I couldn't be happier!


My wife got a kick out of the made in USA by robots sticker and I enjoyed the ice cream! Thanks for producing such a great product and backing it up with world class service.

-Scott


----------



## BrotherAaron

I just got my screen yesterday and had it assembled in about 1/2 hour. The screen was the last item on my theater build.


Starting out with a completely unfinished basement and and 18 months later (doing ALL the work myself and having no experience or help of any kind) I'm very proud of what I have done. Admittedly, cost has been a major issue for me, so I planned on doing a DIY screen. For the last 5 months, I was using a $15 king size bed sheet with my Epson 6100 projector (shooting a 120" diagonal image) while I finished up trim and last minute things. I was fairly impressed that a $15 bedsheet could look as good as it did. I even contemplated making a screen using the bedsheet







My wife was so embarassed by my "ghetto screen" she wouldn't invite anyone over to see my progress. The plan was always to go DIY to keep cost down, but I had one major concern with going DIY. I've read about wood frames warping and not holding the screen material tight and possibly having to deal with re-stretching the screen down the road. I also worried how professional my results would be.. I didn't want the centerpiece of my theater looking "ghetto" after all. While deciding what I was going to do for a screen, I ordered a sample of the xd material from Chris and tested it against my "bed sheet" screen. Suprisingly, the XD sample looked washed out and I could see the pattern of the weave compared to the white bedsheet







I was pretty unsure how an entire screen made of this material was going to look and had alot of reservations about it. Wife was happy when I finally broke down and ordered a 16:9 126" diagonal fixed screen with the black backing from Chris. When it arrived, I was extremely impressed with how it was packed (well protected and very professional) I got the hangman brackets hung and lifted the screen in place. I couldn't wait to check it out, so I skipped the obligatory calibration steps and went straight to my reference movies to test out the screen. Let me tell you, I wasn't expecting what happened next, ....I WAS BLOWN AWAY!!!!! Detail and contrast were OUTSTANDING! I saw absolutely no weave pattern even standing 2 feet away from the screen. It has exceeded my expectations IN EVERY WAY!!!. Suprisingly the sound is even more detailed. The aluminum frame is super strong and I love the mounting/tensioning system! I couldn't be happier with my purchase and wouldn't think twice about purchasing it again.. Thanks again for an awesome product!


























Aaron


I hope no one minds if I share a few pics of my theater. Never started a build thread










Sorry for the terrible pics.. looks much better in person










This picture really doesn't do it justice.. much crisper, and brighter colors.

Wished the projector had better blacks.. might have to look into a masking system

















View into theater room and shot of my DIY Rack









Media Storage racks. holds 600+ movies, one on each side


----------



## bfisherjr

Congratulations Aaron - looks awesome.


I purchased a fixed 2.35 F130 (141" diagonal) from Seymour about 6 months ago (wow time flies). Everything you say is right on. Exceeded my expectations in every way.


Once Chris finishes his masking panels - I'll be all set


----------



## laugsbach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfisherjr* /forum/post/18381850
> 
> 
> Congratulations Aaron - looks awesome.



+1...nice looking space BrotherAaron!


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Aaron -


Great installation and thanks for the kudos. I like the arch door and the rack looks great, and if it has rear access via a closet or something, would be perfect.


One suggestion, is that if you can talk the boss into darkening the wall colors, you can dramatically improve your contrast ratio. A couple gallons of brown matte paint on the walls, maybe just to that first side column, will greatly reduce the light splash-back. The ceiling is often even more important to darken, since it really gets splashed with light. I know you just finished it so aren't likely feeling up to grabbing the paint brush, but just an FYI that if you're itching for a projector upgrade, the paint can get you that upgrade without the price hit.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## deromax

I'll second the recommandation for a darker wall and ceiling paint job. This is mandatory for good contrast!


----------



## BrotherAaron

Thanks for the wonderful comments. I'll get with the Boss on the paint color


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *clubguy* /forum/post/18245665
> 
> 
> Just finished installing my 100" retractable 16:9 XD screen and it works great and the picture looks fantastic. Chris was a big help along the way and I am really glad that I took his advice on going with a larger screen size. I am using a Panasonic 4000 projector with the trigger off the projector to lower and raise the screen automatically.
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris.



How did you set this up to work? I've got my Panasonic 4000 projector on the way to me, and I'd love it to trigger the SeymourAV screen to come down!


----------



## Milt99

Aaron,

Nice job on the room.

I 3rd the "re-paint the room" vote.

Cheap and very effective upgrade.

Regarding your PJ:

Once you've got the room built, you've laid the foundation.

Every other improvement is a relative piece cake.

The most expensive gear in a crappy room is no match for lesser gear in a great room.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WilliamG* /forum/post/18402384
> 
> 
> How did you set this up to work? I've got my Panasonic 4000 projector on the way to me, and I'd love it to trigger the SeymourAV screen to come down!



Hi William -


You just need to get the 4-wire motor, motor control box, and the LVT BUS for 12vDC trigger actuation. Run a wire from the trigger jack on the PJ to the terminals of the LVT BUS, plug it into the "eye" port using the included jumper cable and voila.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18409918
> 
> 
> Hi William -
> 
> 
> You just need to get the 4-wire motor, motor control box, and the LVT BUS for 12vDC trigger actuation. Run a wire from the trigger jack on the PJ to the terminals of the LVT BUS, plug it into the "eye" port using the included jumper cable and voila.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I see. I think I'll stick with the IR route + Harmony remote, as it's tidier for me. Thanks for the reply!


----------



## amillians

Chris,


A public thanks to you and your company for offering a solid, affordable AT product--my new 105" 2.35 Fixed Frame XD setup went in this weekend and looks/works great. The grommet system is a great thing. Too bad you weren't in business in 2001 when I spent way too much on a Stewart CinePerf.










That said, please cease all screen production and get those removable masks into the lineup. Chop chop!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amillians* /forum/post/18412704
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> A public thanks to you and your company for offering a solid, affordable AT product--my new 105" 2.35 Fixed Frame XD setup went in this weekend and looks/works great. The grommet system is a great thing. Too bad you weren't in business in 2001 when I spent way too much on a Stewart CinePerf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, please cease all screen production and get those removable masks into the lineup. Chop chop!



Great to hear you like the screen. We'll get those Stewarts replaced, one at a time...


The masking panels are delayed a little bit by a change that I wanted made in the extrusion. Just a few-week delay - they're still our top development project.


We've also been a bit distracted (from the panel project's view) by some other screen developments for which we'll announce news in few weeks.


Going chop chop,

Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18416075
> 
> 
> Great to hear you like the screen. We'll get those Stewarts replaced, one at a time...
> 
> 
> The masking panels are delayed a little bit by a change that I wanted made in the extrusion. Just a few-week delay - they're still our top development project.
> 
> 
> We've also been a bit distracted (from the panel project's view) by some other screen developments for which we'll announce news in few weeks.
> 
> 
> Going chop chop,
> 
> Chris



Oh boy, you have to atleast tell us if it is a new fabric before I build my screen. If so I want the latest and greatest......


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/18416212
> 
> 
> Oh boy, you have to atleast tell us if it is a new fabric before I build my screen. If so I want the latest and greatest......



Nope. No new materials are planned for the DIY market, so build away. You have the best there is!!!


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18420317
> 
> 
> Nope. No new materials are planned for the DIY market, so build away. You have the best there is!!!
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Great thanks for the reply. I am still working on my room but have the screen material in the tube ready to use. It is going slower then I thought, which is normal I guess. Hope to have the screen wall and masking system finally figured out and done this week end. Then it is on to the AV rack, screen will be the last thing to go in.


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18416075
> 
> 
> Great to hear you like the screen. We'll get those Stewarts replaced, one at a time...
> 
> 
> The masking panels are delayed a little bit by a change that I wanted made in the extrusion. Just a few-week delay - they're still our top development project.
> 
> 
> We've also been a bit distracted (from the panel project's view) by some other screen developments for which we'll announce news in few weeks.
> 
> 
> Going chop chop,
> 
> Chris




Well thanks for all your help Chris and you can add another notch to your gun. I'm replacing my powered Stewart StudioTek-130 106" non-AT with a 126" XD H110. This allows me to move my very large (and menacing looking







) JTR LCR speakers behind the screen. It will be paired up with my new JVC RS35 and if the picture looks almost as good as the Stewart, I will be happy.


If anyone is wondering why not a Stewart microperf, good question. I saw one at a local dealer location and I could easily see the microperf from a 15' viewing distance. I have an XD sample and it looks very smooth from my 12' front row viewing distance. I realize I am sacrificing some brightness with the XD fabric but I'm confident that the RS35 can handle it.


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18416075
> 
> 
> snip...
> 
> The masking panels are delayed a little bit by a change that I wanted made in the extrusion. Just a few-week delay - they're still our top development project.
> 
> snip...
> 
> Going chop chop,
> 
> Chris



Any chance you'll be offering up the remaining 'old' extrusion to DIYers?


----------



## SinisterJ

Anyone heard from Chris lately he is awesome to get back with you on emails but have not heard back from him for a few days maybe on vacation??


----------



## umr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RMK!* /forum/post/18443138
> 
> 
> Well thanks for all your help Chris and you can add another notch to your gun. I'm replacing my powered Stewart StudioTek-130 106" non-AT with a 126" XD H110. This allows me to move my very large (and menacing looking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) JTR LCR speakers behind the screen. It will be paired up with my new JVC RS35 and if the picture looks almost as good as the Stewart, I will be happy.
> 
> 
> If anyone is wondering why not a Stewart microperf, good question. I saw one at a local dealer location and I could easily see the microperf from a 15' viewing distance. I have an XD sample and it looks very smooth from my 12' front row viewing distance. I realize I am sacrificing some brightness with the XD fabric but I'm confident that the RS35 can handle it.



You will need 600 lumens for 12 fL if that is a 16:9 screen for that 0.94 gain material. You will not get that for too many hours on the RS35. Expect to replace the lamp every 200 hours to keep it bright.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SinisterJ* /forum/post/18457791
> 
> 
> ... maybe on vacation??



No such thing around here. I'm getting to them, maybe not until tonight.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Any chance you'll be offering up the remaining 'old' extrusion to DIYers?



There isn't really anything I would imagine would be usable at this point.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## umr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BrotherAaron* /forum/post/18381238
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> I hope no one minds if I share a few pics of my theater. Never started a build thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the terrible pics.. looks much better in person
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This picture really doesn't do it justice.. much crisper, and brighter colors.
> 
> Wished the projector had better blacks.. might have to look into a masking system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You might want to paint your walls a darker color. I suspect you are getting quite a bit of light reflected back on the screen.


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *umr* /forum/post/18458024
> 
> 
> You will need 600 lumens for 12 fL if that is a 16:9 screen for that 0.94 gain material. You will not get that for too many hours on the RS35. Expect to replace the lamp every 200 hours to keep it bright.



Any ideas why your measured gain on the XD is significantly less than advertised (0.94 vs 1.2)??? The sample I had confirmed it is indeed a very nice AT material, but it was, nonetheless, not as bright as the doable screen I had it taped to, which IIRC is in the neighborhood of 1.16 gain.


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18458899
> 
> 
> There isn't really anything I would imagine would be usable at this point.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



bummer... I think you have the nicest frame extrusion available.


----------



## umr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri* /forum/post/18460547
> 
> 
> Any ideas why your measured gain on the XD is significantly less than advertised (0.94 vs 1.2)??? The sample I had confirmed it is indeed a very nice AT material, but it was, nonetheless, not as bright as the doable screen I had it taped to, which IIRC is in the neighborhood of 1.16 gain.



Many advertised gains are too high. Not sure how they got their number. Mine is based on a typical ceiling install theirs would be for no angular offset. I find many people at 6 to 8 fL because of published screens gains and lumens being too high for many products compared to the actual installation. That is why I published test results from a $24,000 light meter with less than a 1% error in the link below to help people avoid the screen mistake. Projectors are even more complex because of unit variation, lamp aging, throw ratio, iris and power effects.


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *umr* /forum/post/18458024
> 
> 
> You will need 600 lumens for 12 fL if that is a 16:9 screen for that 0.94 gain material. You will not get that for too many hours on the RS35. Expect to replace the lamp every 200 hours to keep it bright.



Hi Jeff,


Well since you chimed in







, what AT screen would you recommend that would not necessitate frequent lamp changes with the RS35?


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RMK!* /forum/post/18471577
> 
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> 
> Well since you chimed in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , what AT screen would you recommend that would not necessitate frequent lamp changes with the RS35?



I'm not umr but it would not be what kind of AT screen but what size.

AFAIK, most if not all really good AT screens are very close to 1.0 in gain.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri* /forum/post/18460547
> 
> 
> Any ideas why your measured gain on the XD is significantly less than advertised (0.94 vs 1.2)??? The sample I had confirmed it is indeed a very nice AT material, but it was, nonetheless, not as bright as the doable screen I had it taped to, which IIRC is in the neighborhood of 1.16 gain.



1) Of the dozen or so tests we've performed or had performed for us, the 0.94 figure is at the low end. There are differences in test methodology in measuring gain and the results have around a 10% variance.


2) The set of gain results are then taken as a family and placed against other screen makers' specs as benchmarks. If our original Center Stage material measured identically to another screen company's specified 1.16 gain, then we have to take that into consideration for our spec. The new XD then measures proportionately brighter.


3) I have lots of JVC customers with larger screens, none of which that I've ever heard of are changing lamps every 200 hours.


4) Unlike most screen companies we back what we make with a full return guarantee.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18473191
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Unlike most screen companies we back what we make with a full return guarantee.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



ZING!!! OK, so I always wanted to say ZING!!











In all seriousness, I love a company that will back its product. Very few do these days.


----------



## WilsonL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RMK!* /forum/post/18443138
> 
> 
> Well thanks for all your help Chris and you can add another notch to your gun. I'm replacing my powered Stewart StudioTek-130 106" non-AT with a 126" XD H110. This allows me to move my very large (and menacing looking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) JTR LCR speakers behind the screen. It will be paired up with my new JVC RS35 and if the picture looks almost as good as the Stewart, I will be happy.



When is it going up?


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WilsonL* /forum/post/18473817
> 
> 
> When is it going up?



It's supposed to ship this week so it looks like next weekend.


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18473191
> 
> 
> 1) Of the dozen or so tests we've performed or had performed for us, the 0.94 figure is at the low end. There are differences in test methodology in measuring gain and the results have around a 10% variance.
> 
> 
> 2) The set of gain results are then taken as a family and placed against other screen makers' specs as benchmarks. If our original Center Stage material measured identically to another screen company's specified 1.16 gain, then we have to take that into consideration for our spec. The new XD then measures proportionately brighter.
> 
> 
> 3) I have lots of JVC customers with larger screens, none of which that I've ever heard of are changing lamps every 200 hours.
> 
> 
> 4) Unlike most screen companies we back what we make with a full return guarantee.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks for the reply Chris! I hope my post was not taken as overly critical... was just curious about the discrepancy. No matter, if one is in the market for an affordable, high performance AT screen (DIY or otherwise), there really is only one choice. And as you mention, its backed with a nice guarantee as well


----------



## SinisterJ

Ordered my 130" wide 2.40 Screen today cant wait! Ill post pics when it gets here! Chris was great to deal with!


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SinisterJ* /forum/post/18488840
> 
> 
> Ordered my 130" wide 2.40 Screen today cant wait! Ill post pics when it gets here! Chris was great to deal with!



The wait.... killing me... Welcome to the party!


----------



## SteveHorn

Chris,

I don't know if this has been specifically stated (I looked thru your previous posts, but not exhaustively) or assumed, but the masking arrangement you're concocting for the Center Stage screen... will it be applicable to pillar box masking (16:9 image on a 2.35 screen) as well as letter box masking (2.35 image on a 16:9 screen)? Obviously (I think) one would not need both, but those with a scope screen would presumably want to mask the sides when viewing 1.78 (i.e. HD) formatted sources and would purchase one flavor, while those with 1.78 screens would purchase masks for the top and bottom for 2.35 material. (I'm rethinking my decision on a 1.78 Hxxx screen and now considering a Fxxx screen and trying to cover all the bases in the process.







)


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/18522811
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> I don't know if this has been specifically stated (I looked thru your previous posts, but not exhaustively) or assumed, but the masking arrangement you're concocting for the Center Stage screen... will it be applicable to pillar box masking (16:9 image on a 2.35 screen) as well as letter box masking (2.35 image on a 16:9 screen)? Obviously (I think) one would not need both, but those with a scope screen would presumably want to mask the sides when viewing 1.78 (i.e. HD) formatted sources and would purchase one flavor, while those with 1.78 screens would purchase masks for the top and bottom for 2.35 material. (I'm rethinking my decision on a 1.78 Hxxx screen and now considering a Fxxx screen and trying to cover all the bases in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



Not Chris but I spoke with him about this. The first panels available will be the pillar box (native 2:35 screen to 16:9) for CIH setups. Seymour will offer (and I will purchase







) the 16:9 native to 2:35 horizontal panels. These will be big and might be a little more difficult to setup/takedown but they should satisfy those of us with CIW setups.


----------



## SteveHorn

RMK!,

Thanks for the reply and update. Good to hear that all bases (aspects) are covered (pun intended).


----------



## RMK!

I posted some comments and pics on my new fixed XD screen here .


----------



## simic

Recently encountered issue with brittle/cracked/snapped O-rings on my fixed screen (shipped Aug 09).


Emailed Chris and he promptly sent a complete set of O-rings over.


Screen is back in operation again.










Are there any other centerstage fixed screen owners facing this issue?


----------



## bfisherjr

Went and checked a handful of mine (the easy ones to see) and they all look good. Mine is only about 8 months old...


----------



## BIGmouthinDC

Looks like they were exposed to excessive heat:

http://www.allorings.com/failure.htm 


Could also have been a bad day at the Chinese manufacturing plant and they had a bad brew.


----------



## msmCutter

How big of a screen could I have if you 15 degree tilt cut some of the fancy 63" XD material?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BIGmouthinDC* /forum/post/18590583
> 
> 
> Looks like they were exposed to excessive heat:
> 
> http://www.allorings.com/failure.htm
> 
> 
> Could also have been a bad day at the Chinese manufacturing plant and they had a bad brew.



They're domestic, but I do have a local O-ring manufacturer I need to visit. They say they can tweak the formulation for me, too.


I've broken a few here and there but I haven't seen cracking like that. I doubt it's heat, but possibly his location in Singapore has higher levels of something like sulfur? Anyway, we've reduced the tension on them since his July '09 order, and can easily tweak the O-ring up however tough it needs to be. Easy fixes and he's guaranteed for 10 years.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msmCutter* /forum/post/18594321
> 
> 
> How big of a screen could I have if you 15 degree tilt cut some of the fancy 63" XD material?



For a full 15 degree tilt, you could fit a piece size appx 44" x 77". I know, not very useful. That material is best for nice, large 2.35/2.40 screens.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

The fixed frame masking panels will hopefully start prototyping here at the end of the month. Sorry it's taken longer than it should have, but given the change in the extrusion, these things take time. Also, we're having the extrusions black anodized so they're wicked cool.


CIH first, but we'll get CIW solved as quickly as my design ideas vs. reality allows for.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## msmCutter




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18596987
> 
> 
> For a full 15 degree tilt, you could fit a piece size appx 44" x 77". I know, not very useful. That material is best for nice, large 2.35/2.40 screens.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



What's that mean for the big stuff? Is there any reason why you would use a different angle than 15 degrees?


My infocus SP5000 (720p) is probably fine on the cheaper sheet, but if I upgrade I'd hate to discover I had a problem from the increased resolution.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msmCutter* /forum/post/18600676
> 
> 
> What's that mean for the big stuff? Is there any reason why you would use a different angle than 15 degrees?
> 
> 
> My infocus SP5000 (720p) is probably fine on the cheaper sheet, but if I upgrade I'd hate to discover I had a problem from the increased resolution.



What he means is that the biggest 16:9 screen you can get from 63" material is about 77" wide and 44" tall which is 88" diagonal


If you did a 2.35 screen you could get 92" wide by 39" tall which is 100" diagonal. But you are only going to get a 69"x36" (80" diagonal) 16:9 screen on that 2.35 screen.


Sooo if you want a bigger screen you need to go to the 96" tall material - 2.35 you could go 140"x60" (152" diagonal)


----------



## petew

Or don't do the 15* tilt. Not advisable without testing first with your projector. Not an issue with JVC due to high fill ratio. Same with Panasonic 3000 and 4000 because of smoothscreen. Probably would have moire with your 720p machine, unfortunately.


----------



## WilliamG

Just got my retractable screen! I'm REALLY excited. Got my Panasonic 4000 projector finally mounted this morning, and the screen will go up tomorrow. I unboxed it to make sure all was OK, and LOVED that there was a package of organic microwave popcorn and a coupon for Ben & Jerry's in the box!










I will report back when the screen is mounted. Can't.... wait!


----------



## WilliamG

OK, so got the screen mounted, but I'm saddened by the astronomical amount of waving out of the box.. The instructions talk about fixing the sides and bottom, but I've been unable to do so, and there's no mention of fixing the top, either... May have to give Chris a ring!


I've been able to adjust the vertical turnbuckles to no real effect, and I can't turn either horizontal turnbuckle at all. I'm not even sure which part I'm supposed to loosen/tighten on the horizontal turnbuckle. The thread, or the "fat" part. Either way, I couldn't turn either of them.







And it really looks bad.










Any advice?


----------



## chriscmore

I'd suggest retaking the picture using a flash or otherwise placing an image on the screen, which would be a more realistic context to how the screen would perform for you.


The angle of the top tab cables is only a few degrees due to the 30" drop you have. If you had an 8" drop, for example, we could crank out those top tabs and you could have a smoother ambient-light surface.


We guarantee everything, so if you don't want a shorter drop/ higher tensioned screen, we'd be happy to take it back. It's been about two years since the B-Stock list had anything but a CEDIA screen.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msmCutter* /forum/post/18600676
> 
> 
> What's that mean for the big stuff? Is there any reason why you would use a different angle than 15 degrees?
> 
> 
> My infocus SP5000 (720p) is probably fine on the cheaper sheet, but if I upgrade I'd hate to discover I had a problem from the increased resolution.



We max at 20 degrees until that no longer fits on the roll. Then, we shallow out the tilted angle to around six and then zero. As the screen gets larger, the need for tilting is reduced as well.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## WilliamG

Hey Chris, thanks for replying. Can you explain a bit further how to adjust the horizontal turnbuckles? I had a heck of a time trying to turn them, and couldn't get them to move one iota.


By the way, you were right. I'd say roughly 90% of the waving is completely invisible when viewed at night with my light blocking shades in action. The only visible waving I have now is just on the lower half the screen on the sides. In this link, it's the *third* image down in the collection of pictures showing waving:

http://www.seymourav.com/articles/Ce...structions.pdf 


I'd love to be able to adjust those horizontal turnbuckles, but can't make it happen for some reason... Any advice would be awesome! Thank you!


----------



## msmCutter




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18609333
> 
> 
> We max at 20 degrees until that no longer fits on the roll. Then, we shallow out the tilted angle to around six and then zero. As the screen gets larger, the need for tilting is reduced as well.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Do you have a standard size/tilt chart or a rule of thumb for size vs. suggested tilt?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msmCutter* /forum/post/18610542
> 
> 
> Do you have a standard size/tilt chart or a rule of thumb for size vs. suggested tilt?



We do 20 degrees until it can't fit on the 98" wide roll. On the fixed frame screens where we do this as standard, we've had exactly zero issues. Below are the tilted angles versus format/image widths.


H085 20

90 20

95 20

100 20

105 20

110 18

115 16

120 13

130 9

140 6

150 0

160 0


F100 20

105 20

110 20

115 20

120 20

130 18

140 15

150 12

160 9

170 7


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## WilliamG

Thanks, Chris, for your telephone advice/recommendations. I really, really appreciate the customer service. Definitely makes me feel good about my purchase.


----------



## fight4yu

have a question on the electric screen and backdrop option...

If I ordered an 8" backdrop, can I stop my projector so that it might be 5" or 6" blackdrop only?

My theater setup calls for the cabinet below the ceiling mount screen. At this point, I am not sure I like a 4" or 5" or 8" blackdrop yet. It will be good if I just purchase the 8" blackdrop and I can stop at anything below (in case my maths are wrong on my theatre setup or I actually like the picture to be a bit higher). Anyone had the electric screen and can confirm if I can do that?


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18612469
> 
> 
> have a question on the electric screen and backdrop option...
> 
> If I ordered an 8" backdrop, can I stop my projector so that it might be 5" or 6" blackdrop only?
> 
> My theater setup calls for the cabinet below the ceiling mount screen. At this point, I am not sure I like a 4" or 5" or 8" blackdrop yet. It will be good if I just purchase the 8" blackdrop and I can stop at anything below (in case my maths are wrong on my theatre setup or I actually like the picture to be a bit higher). Anyone had the electric screen and can confirm if I can do that?



Hah. Funny you should ask this. I got my retractable screen this past weekend, and I'm trying to find out if you can do this, too, since I have a fairly large drop, and so it might be nice to be able to raise it a tad depending on the material.


I'll let you know what I find out.


----------



## fight4yu

Nice! Thanks WilliamG.

And what sort of "control" did you get? LVT or the IR?


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18612560
> 
> 
> Nice! Thanks WilliamG.
> 
> And what sort of "control" did you get? LVT or the IR?



esaywha?


I didn't do the IR. I didn't want an extra control box that comes with that. I got the 2 regular RF remotes. Not sure what LVT is.


----------



## fight4yu

LVT = Low Voltage Trigger. Wondering if the LVT will allow for up/down/stop and how it works...


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18612469
> 
> 
> have a question on the electric screen and backdrop option...
> 
> If I ordered an 8" backdrop, can I stop my projector so that it might be 5" or 6" blackdrop only?
> 
> My theater setup calls for the cabinet below the ceiling mount screen. At this point, I am not sure I like a 4" or 5" or 8" blackdrop yet. It will be good if I just purchase the 8" blackdrop and I can stop at anything below (in case my maths are wrong on my theatre setup or I actually like the picture to be a bit higher). Anyone had the electric screen and can confirm if I can do that?



You can easily change the drop limits shorter than how we made it. If you got the RF-only motors like William did, then it's a pretty simple program algorithm done via one of the remotes. If you got a 4-wire motor and external control box, then in your accessories box you also got a green plastic hex tool that you can reach up and rotate the limit screw on the head of the motor.


The only disadvantage to shortening the motor limits is that the angle and effectiveness of the top tabs is reduced the further away you go from how we anchored it. Couple inches is no big deal, but like Blackjack, try to get close.


Lengthening is the harder direction, because you'll run out of cable and header material. Typically you can lengthen it by about an inch, but not much if any more, so again - like Blackjack, get close.


The LVT-BUS can only trigger up and down in the presence or lack of, DC voltage. It just acts as an external dry-contact solid state relay.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## WilliamG

Hey Chris, thanks for the reply! Can you get into more detail about HOW you program it? Can you make it so that when I want to watch 2:35:1 material, the screen is at X setting, and then for 16:9 material, I can hit a button and have the screen be slightly higher? I didn't know if this was a one-shot program, or you can have "Memories" like this...


Thanks!


----------



## fight4yu

Thanks Chris! I think for me, I am debating either 5 or 6 or 7 inches over a 59" height. Hopefully that's OK. Thanks for the reassuring. BTW, how thick is the tension rod? I need to take that into account so it doesn't bump into my cabinet.


And as far as I read from the instruction, WilliamG, it is a one-shot programming. You program the upper limits and lower limits by holding the stop and down buttons for a few seconds.


----------



## WilliamG

fight4u, do you mean the weight bar thickness?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18617055
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris! I think for me, I am debating either 5 or 6 or 7 inches over a 59" height. Hopefully that's OK. Thanks for the reassuring. BTW, how thick is the tension rod? I need to take that into account so it doesn't bump into my cabinet.
> 
> 
> And as far as I read from the instruction, WilliamG, it is a one-shot programming. You program the upper limits and lower limits by holding the stop and down buttons for a few seconds.



The weight bar is about 1" in diameter.


The limits programming via remote isn't one-shot, but since you're also reprogramming the upper limits (just pressing stop twice if it's already up to begin with), it's more of a two-minute process that you'll not want to do in between movies. It's far more convenient to just hit stop at some point during drop.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Gelfling

Just wanted to confirm that tilting my screen would not be beneficial with an AE4000. In order to tilt it, I would need to get the large of the 2 fabrics offered, increasing my out of pocket expenses.


----------



## oman321

Confirmed, you will be fine Gelfling, Doesn't future proof you though if you ever upgrade projectors though, but in that event you just replace the fabric of your screen.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gelfling* /forum/post/18628032
> 
> 
> Just wanted to confirm that tilting my screen would not be beneficial with an AE4000. In order to tilt it, I would need to get the large of the 2 fabrics offered, increasing my out of pocket expenses.



The only other aspect I'd add to oman's sage advice is that if you're pushing the viewing distance to the screen, say 11' or closer, then a tilted cut does tend to make the texture less noticeable.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Gelfling




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18650487
> 
> 
> The only other aspect I'd add to oman's sage advice is that if you're pushing the viewing distance to the screen, say 11' or closer, then a tilted cut does tend to make the texture less noticeable.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Excellent point, that I should have thought of. I am @ about 10 fee to front row so I will get the bigger length fabric and have it tilted. If I remember correctly, I can get it tilted and cut for me for a fee, right?


----------



## RMK!

Here is a picture of my new 126.5" diag XD screen. This screen replaced a powered Stewart Studiotek 130 that provided an excellent image but I am preferring the larger size and hidden speakers with the Seymour AT.










What you see:











What you don't see:


----------



## umr

Very nice RMK! You may want to consider adding some isolation between the subs and speakers, and the center and the stand if you do not have any at this time to avoid any induced vibration.


----------



## laugsbach

^^


WOW...










Nice looking set-up RMK! New people to your theater room have no idea what they are in for...


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *umr* /forum/post/18656392
> 
> 
> Very nice RMK! You may want to consider adding some isolation between the subs and speakers, and the center and the stand if you do not have any at this time to avoid any induced vibration.



Hi Jeff, good point but that is an older picture. The LCR speakers are now on Subdude isolation platforms







.


----------



## msmCutter




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18610842
> 
> 
> We do 20 degrees until it can't fit on the 98" wide roll. On the fixed frame screens where we do this as standard, we've had exactly zero issues. Below are the tilted angles versus format/image widths.
> 
> 
> H085 20
> 
> 90 20
> 
> 95 20
> 
> 100 20
> 
> 105 20
> 
> 110 18
> 
> 115 16
> 
> 120 13
> 
> 130 9
> 
> 140 6
> 
> 150 0
> 
> 160 0
> 
> 
> F100 20
> 
> 105 20
> 
> 110 20
> 
> 115 20
> 
> 120 20
> 
> 130 18
> 
> 140 15
> 
> 150 12
> 
> 160 9
> 
> 170 7
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Why don't you use a 6 degree tilt on the smaller screens to reduce waste? Does the greater tilt do a greater job of reducing moire?


I'm asking because I'm considering making a giant screen and masking it smaller, just in case I want to go bigger one day.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msmCutter* /forum/post/18656990
> 
> 
> Why don't you use a 6 degree tilt on the smaller screens to reduce waste? Does the greater tilt do a greater job of reducing moire?
> 
> 
> I'm asking because I'm considering making a giant screen and masking it smaller, just in case I want to go bigger one day.



We tend not to worry much about waste since the material cost is a minor cost of the overall effort to get a world class image. Other cost factors such as your (or our) labor, shipping, frame materials, projector, etc, make those triangle-shaped scraps not too big a deal.


You can do an oversized screen and mask down to something smaller as long as you don't over-do it. Perhaps pick the tallest 16:9 and widest 2.40 image you'd want and go from there. But I wouldn't advise shooting a small image that would otherwise get a 20 degree tilt on a massive piece that can only accommodate a 6 degree tilt, unless you've demonstrated via a sample that tilt is just not an issue with your projector and image size.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msmCutter* /forum/post/18656990
> 
> 
> Why don't you use a 6 degree tilt on the smaller screens to reduce waste? Does the greater tilt do a greater job of reducing moire?
> 
> 
> I'm asking because I'm considering making a giant screen and masking it smaller, just in case I want to go bigger one day.



I am doing something similar to you. I am making a 144x60 screen with 96" material. I sould beable to get about a 13 deg tilt out of it doing this. Final screen size will be figured out once all is up and we can see how the projected image looks, then mask down from their.


----------



## scottyb

Hey RMK,


Is that the Seymour frame or your own.

We have the Seymour frame and it's as good as it gets!!


Scott


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/18660142
> 
> 
> Hey RMK,
> 
> 
> Is that the Seymour frame or your own.
> 
> We have the Seymour frame and it's as good as it gets!!
> 
> 
> Scott



Hi Scott,


It's the Seymour frame and I agree, the fame quality is top notch.


----------



## WilliamG

Well, I figured I'd give a write-up about my Seymour screen experience, and results of the set-up etc etc...


My screen was a long time in the making, mostly because I spent ages figuring out what to do about needing a retractable AT screen. The fact that I got quite a few PMs touting Chris's screens says a lot about SeymourAV's quality.


In any case, the screen tool just under a month to build. I got an 85" wide/97.5" diagonal 16:9 retractable XD screen, with black backing, ivory white housing, and the standard RF motor with two remotes.


I was extremely nervous about what size screen to get, because I wasn't in my new house yet, and had to guesstimate the drop based on getting the projector first (Panasonic PT-AE4000U), pointing it at a blank wall in my apartment and getting the seating distance correct based on what it would be in my house.


In any case, from the wall where I sit in my new house to where the screen was going to drop was a hair under 12 feet, and the projector was going to be ceiling mounted right above my head, so the throw is roughly 11.5 feet.


I decided on an 18" total drop (16" material, with the 2" velvet border).


The screen took just under a month to be built and shipped, and then there was the EXCRUCIATING wait for it to arrive, but arrive it did!



The box:


I must make special mention of this. The box was fantastically packed. A box inside of another box, and then the screen wrapped in a felt/velvet blue material. This definitely got my juices flowing! The box contained the screen (duh!), two RF remotes, little mounts for the remotes, a packet of organic microwave popcorn







and a coupon for a free pint of Ben and Jerry's.







Loved the touch! No manual was included, but I see this as a good thing, I think... All the instructions you could need are on SeymourAV's site, so why waste the paper?



The screen mounting:


Mounting the screen was not very hard at all. The part that took the longest was making sure to find the studs in the ceiling, and getting the very-light ceiling bracket screwed in securely. After that was done, it was just a case of grabbing the screen casing, hooking it over the ceiling bracket, and tightening a couple of screws. I'd say that once you have the bracket in place, it's a 2-minute job to get the screen up and secure. My very not-butch wife helped me get the screen into place, and it's definitely a two-person job mostly because balancing the screen is not fun by yourself! I can only imagine how much harder it would be with a bigger screen and just yourself! So make sure you have a wife or friends to help you!


The screen:


I will say, in my well-lit room (well, I was putting up the screen at the time!) I was VERY disappointed when I put the screen down. The screen came down very smoothly, but there were so many waves/ripples all over the place. My face went from







to







in a matter of seconds. I was in a panic! I spoke to Chris, and he explained what to adjust.. I had made some adjustments as per the instructions, and they had helped, but I wasn't 100% on the results. Then Chris made the ridiculous (hah!) suggestion of actually using the screen in its *proper* environment, so I turned the lights out, pulled across my light-blocking shades and window coverings, and boom.... my face went back to







. I couldn't believe that the waves would all but disappear, but they did. A few more adjustments here and there to the turnbuckles and honestly - I see ZERO waves now in my native viewing area. Really excellent results after a scare!


The XD material:


This is going to be a VERY subjective area. I believe I've heard that from just 4 feet away you won't be able to see the material pattern, but I either misread that or the person who sad it is legally blind. Where I sit at just under 12 feet away, on solid white colors I can pretty easily make out the pattern. It's not particularly distracting, but it's definitely there. On solid blacks, blues, greens etc, I cannot see the pattern at all, and any "normal" scenes are no issue whatsoever. Now bear in mind my eyesight is actually pretty darn good, and I'm EXTREMELY anal about pretty-much everything. Nothing for most people to worry about, that's for sure.


The acoustics:


I definitely had to turn up my center channel a tad, as Seymour's site suggests, but after that, my center channel sounded great, with very little detectable disappearance of any frequencies to my ears (I compared with the screen down and up). I really do adore how the center channel disappears, and creates a much greater sound field. I wish my front left and right speakers were hidden, too. Hidden speakers certainly add to the illusion of a greater sound field...



The size:


I was dead on, for me, about the size. For 16:9 material, the screen size is perfect. For 2:35:1 material, the size is perfect. I know some people like a 200" diagonal screen at 3 feet viewing distance, but I'm not one of those people. I like a comfortable viewing, and this is certainly it. It's just fantastic, and quite the upgrade from my 46" Samsung LN46B750, let me tell you...



The result:


When I had my initial ripples/waves scare, Chris was very easy to talk to, very good at explaining things, and somehow really, REALLY confident about his product. After using the screen some more it makes sense: It really is very, VERY good. Now I've only had it up a few weeks, but it's just so superb to look at as of now, and I hope it doesn't change!


I give the SeymourAV XD retractable screen two thumbs up!


(The popcorn and Ben and Jerry's weren't bad either!







)


----------



## fight4yu

Great review! Thanks William!


----------



## fight4yu

Any screenshots?


----------



## WilliamG

I will get some pictures up ASAP. My room is sort-of a disaster. I can't believe what a pain in the butt it is to get the projector to display straight at the screen! Constant small adjustments to the tilt etc. It seems like it's impossible to get it perfect. I'm overscanning by just a couple of pixels to get it even remotely straight! Gah!


----------



## simic

five of the replacement orings snapped again 3 weeks after installation. luckily Chris shipped extras.


i doubled checked the installation video and confirmed i did it the correct way. loop thru the grommet and hook both ends on the screw.


(anyway, there is no other way of installing the orings)


----------



## SinisterJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WilliamG* /forum/post/18670369
> 
> 
> I will get some pictures up ASAP. My room is sort-of a disaster. I can't believe what a pain in the butt it is to get the projector to display straight at the screen! Constant small adjustments to the tilt etc. It seems like it's impossible to get it perfect. I'm overscanning by just a couple of pixels to get it even remotely straight! Gah!



Trust me! I feel your pain! I am going through the same thing right now....


----------



## corock

I'm looking at getting an electric Seymour screen because I want it out of the way when I'm using my system for listening to music. I'm wondering if there is an advantage to leaving it down execept when listening to music instead of having it come down when I'm watching video.


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *corock* /forum/post/18698257
> 
> 
> I'm looking at getting an electric Seymour screen because I want it out of the way when I'm using my system for listening to music. I'm wondering if there is an advantage to leaving it down execept when listening to music instead of having it come down when I'm watching video.



Well... the advantage is that you don't need to wait for it to come down.







Other than that, probably no real advantage.


----------



## corock

I've never had a screen before. So, spending most of its time retracted doesn't cause any waviness over time?


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *corock* /forum/post/18698466
> 
> 
> I've never had a screen before. So, spending most of its time retracted doesn't cause any waviness over time?



That's a good question, and my answer is that I just don't know.







Chris might now, though. My screen stays retracted when it's not in use. After all, that was the point of it.


----------



## corock

The reason I'm going retractable is because I have and 11'x17' room. I would like a 100"-120" screen but can't fit that between my LR speakers. So if I go with an AT screen, no problem. But, I will also be using my HT as a listening room and I like speakers so I want to be able to see them when not watching video. That's why I'm not just putting a fixed screen in front of my speakers. So I have the option of leaving the screen down when the HT room is not in use as well. I would prefer the "cleaner" look of having the screen come down when the projector turns on, but I would leave it down if there is a physical advantage.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *corock* /forum/post/18698634
> 
> 
> The reason I'm going retractable is because I have and 11'x17' room. I would like a 100"-120" screen but can't fit that between my LR speakers. So if I go with an AT screen, no problem. But, I will also be using my HT as a listening room and I like speakers so I want to be able to see them when not watching video. That's why I'm not just putting a fixed screen in front of my speakers. So I have the option of leaving the screen down when the HT room is not in use as well. I would prefer the "cleaner" look of having the screen come down when the projector turns on, but I would leave it down if there is a physical advantage.



Only thing to keep in mind is that your speaker tunning could be different when the AT screen is in front of the speaker then when it is not. If you can save two different setting in your pre/pro it could be a non issue then.


----------



## corock

I'm going to use an Anthem AVM 50v. It's ARC room correction has the ability to store seperate settings for music and movies, so it will be ideal for my situation.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *corock* /forum/post/18698257
> 
> 
> I'm looking at getting an electric Seymour screen because I want it out of the way when I'm using my system for listening to music. I'm wondering if there is an advantage to leaving it down execept when listening to music instead of having it come down when I'm watching video.



On the screens that use the XD material, since June 2009, I haven't seen any long-term physical differences between retracting or not. I've rarely seen temperature changes slightly affect the materials, which tweaking the cables should fix fine. The only real aspect I'd attribute to the rolling/unrolling is there is the screen can take a couple minutes to relax in the down position. It's not significant, as we were bouncing the CEDIA screen up and down throughout the show.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## amdoverclocker

so just wondering, why not make a material that has holes on a tilt rather then wasting so much material?


BTW just ordered my 10' of XD a few days ago.


----------



## chriscmore

We're getting relatively close to fixed frame panel updates. The extrusions are at the anodizers getting the blacked-out treatment, which we're trying to get turned around quickly, but for some reason that industry just isn't as high-strung as I'd like them to be.


We have several construction techniques we'll be trying once the aluminum gets in, but I'm still undecided on the panel fabric itself. With all the testing I've done, it looks like there are two options. My plan is to make both available for a while and see what folks like better. I don't want to just assume, as I'm frequently told what that makes me...


Option 1: Black Backing panel. This material is by multiple times more AT than any other black AT material out there. It's a fraction of a dB attenuation (millibels) on average and most processors struggle to measure any difference. I place a priority on the AT quality since these panels go on top of the screen, and possibly the screen's black backing, too.


So it would have the best AT properties available anywhere, and we'd stitch a lovely Swiss velvet leading edge to absorb those overscan pixels and give you the sharpest frame line available. At this point, it's my favorite concept, but the downsides are that it could prove costly to construct and it will have a black color that will be visibly different than the Fidelio and Swiss velvet edges. Possibly the two-tone look would be cool. Possibly you'll hate it. And for those...


Option 2: Black AT material panel. This is a version where we'd use a darker, more absorptive material across the whole panel. It may or may not need the Swiss velvet leading edge, as it's pretty dark stuff. At this point I can't tell you what it is, as we have two slightly different versions, one custom and another from a different screen manufacturer that we can get.


It's advantages is that it would provide a visually one-color look and possibly be simpler/cheaper to make. The downside is about 1-2 dB attenuation.


Again, depending on how they actually go together, they'll both be made available. Thought you might like knowing what's brewing...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## SteveHorn

Option 1: how about a side-by-side pix of the panel w/the edge treatment vs. the Fidelio border to give the AT purists some idea of what the shading difference will be. That said,

Option 2: sounds like 1-2dB loss would be significant enough to justify living with the shade difference of option 1. One might/would need to adjust the L&R speakers up a bit for 16:9 material. So now you'd have a 1.78 audio profile and a 2.35 profile. I don't know about that...JMHO

But progress is good.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

By black backing do you mean the same stuff that you send out of the backing on your screens now? I would have to look at mine again but I thought that it seamed a little bit thin for masking.


I can not use your masking panels but I really look forward to your results so that I can apply them to my motorized masking.


By chance did you do any testing with the GOM 701 in front of your screen to see what the dB loss is? That was my intended fabric to use but I was hpoing for something blacker then that if possible.


----------



## WilliamG

Question:


I've been noticing some moire on the SeymourAV retractable screen with my Panasonic 4000, and now my just-arrived Epson 8500UB. Is there something one can do to lessen it?


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18703342
> 
> 
> We're getting relatively close to fixed frame panel updates. The extrusions are at the anodizers getting the blacked-out treatment, which we're trying to get turned around quickly, but for some reason that industry just isn't as high-strung as I'd like them to be.
> 
> 
> We have several construction techniques we'll be trying once the aluminum gets in, but I'm still undecided on the panel fabric itself. With all the testing I've done, it looks like there are two options. My plan is to make both available for a while and see what folks like better. I don't want to just assume, as I'm frequently told what that makes me...
> 
> 
> Option 1: Black Backing panel. This material is by multiple times more AT than any other black AT material out there. It's a fraction of a dB attenuation (millibels) on average and most processors struggle to measure any difference. I place a priority on the AT quality since these panels go on top of the screen, and possibly the screen's black backing, too.
> 
> 
> So it would have the best AT properties available anywhere, and we'd stitch a lovely Swiss velvet leading edge to absorb those overscan pixels and give you the sharpest frame line available. At this point, it's my favorite concept, but the downsides are that it could prove costly to construct and it will have a black color that will be visibly different than the Fidelio and Swiss velvet edges. Possibly the two-tone look would be cool. Possibly you'll hate it. And for those...
> 
> 
> Option 2: Black AT material panel. This is a version where we'd use a darker, more absorptive material across the whole panel. It may or may not need the Swiss velvet leading edge, as it's pretty dark stuff. At this point I can't tell you what it is, as we have two slightly different versions, one custom and another from a different screen manufacturer that we can get.
> 
> 
> It's advantages is that it would provide a visually one-color look and possibly be simpler/cheaper to make. The downside is about 1-2 dB attenuation.
> 
> 
> Again, depending on how they actually go together, they'll both be made available. Thought you might like knowing what's brewing...
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Either will work for me but if pressed, I like option 2. The mid/high frequency drivers would normally be closer to the center of the screen and thus, mostly unaffected by the panels. I think the visual blending of the border material should be a high priority.


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RMK!* /forum/post/18707409
> 
> 
> Either will work for me but if pressed, I like option 2. The mid/high frequency drivers would normally be closer to the center of the screen and thus, mostly unaffected by the panels. I think the visual blending of the border material should be a high priority.



Why would the mid-high freq drivers be closer to the center of the screen?


if you have three front speakers wouldn't the LR be off to the sides?


Just asking??


Scott


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/18707492
> 
> 
> Why would the mid-high freq drivers be closer to the center of the screen?
> 
> 
> if you have three front speakers wouldn't the LR be off to the sides?
> 
> 
> Just asking??
> 
> 
> Scott



Two examples:


From another screen manufacturers website:










My LCR's behind a Seymour XD


----------



## fight4yu

By center, I think RMK refer to that from a vertical perspective, not horizontally..i.e. the masking, which is at the top and bottom should not matter as much.


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18707966
> 
> 
> By center, I think RMK refer to that from a vertical perspective, not horizontally..i.e. the masking, which is at the top and bottom should not matter as much.



This makes sense. I'm speaking of masking for a 2:35 screen.

I don't know that Seymour is making 16:9 masking at this time but I could be wrong.


Scott


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/18708204
> 
> 
> This makes sense. I'm speaking of masking for a 2:35 screen.
> 
> I don't know that Seymour is making 16:9 masking at this time but I could be wrong.
> 
> 
> Scott



Chris is making both CIH and CIW masks. My point is that if the mid/HF drivers are sufficiently inboard of the mask panels the effect will be minimal. Chris is a stickler for SQ and I'm glad he is







. I would prefer a consistent border color as the slight attenuation delta can be dealt with via EQ.


Just my $.02


----------



## Milt99

Maybe I'm mis-understanding here but the "color match" depends mostly on what the screen wall is currently covered with.

The vast majority of screenwalls are using GOM 701.

So the most noticeable non-match is going to be against whatever the screenwall is covered with.

My default would be for the panels with the least amount of attenuation.

Given that the panels will be removed for a substantial amount of viewing, likely won't match my frame no matter what and as long as they are dark enough the absorb the light spill and give that "floating in air" illusion I'm good.

My room is over 15' wide and I have a substantial amount of non-screen area covered in GOM.

I've been considering recovering my screenwall with Chris' AT backing material but that is a lot of work.

I would think they'll be testing this in a real world home theater environment to see if it's noticeable with the lights off and a projector running.

I'll be interested to see what happens.


----------



## chriscmore

WilliamG - Check your PMs on potential Epson panel convergence problems and the artifacts they can create.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18710391
> 
> 
> WilliamG - Check your PMs on potential Epson panel convergence problems and the artifacts they can create.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I did! And replied, too. I had the same issue with the Panasonic, so I'm not sure what's going on there...


----------



## chriscmore

Milt -


Good point, but I can only realistically consider what tone of black the panels are with respect to the Fidelio frame.


Option 1 would be the 2-material, most AT solution, which does use our screen black backing material. Average dB attenuation is only 0.29dB.


Option 2 would be the darker, more one-color solution. Maybe for those where either you prioritize the "oneness" of the black look and have easier AT needs. Such as: 1) for CIH masking, maybe the L/R speakers are outside the screen, 2) for CIW masking, maybe only mids and woofers will be in the masking zone. Most all attenuation is in the top octave and mids and woofers will see no difference. This would be exactly the case for RMH. Average dB attenuation will be very similar to GoM, at about 1.4dB, but blacker.


Of course we need to see them "in action" first, but thanks for voicing what performance aspects you see as most important.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RMK!* /forum/post/18707409
> 
> 
> Either will work for me but if pressed, I like option 2. The mid/high frequency drivers would normally be closer to the center of the screen and thus, mostly unaffected by the panels. I think the visual blending of the border material should be a high priority.



OK, If your are still speaking 2:35 I don't know that most people would have their LR's closer to the middle, hence Chris's dilema.


I for one have my LR's out as far as possible on a 2:35 format screen and would like more AT transparancy than absolute black.


Others like you, Mr. RMK, have the LR's in closer so black is more important than AT quality.


I think if it's not too hard to offer both everybody wins.

If both are too difficult, than see which is more popular and obviously that is the winner.


As we all know Chris will do what is best for his customers as he always does.

His products are one of the best bang for the bucks in the industry today!!


Scott


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/18710540
> 
> 
> OK, If your are still speaking 2:35 I don't know that most people would have their LR's closer to the middle, hence Chris's dilema.
> 
> 
> I for one have my LR's out as far as possible on a 2:35 format screen and would like more AT transparancy than absolute black.
> 
> 
> Others like you, Mr. RMK, have the LR's in closer so black is more important than AT quality.
> 
> 
> I think if it's not too hard to offer both everybody wins.
> 
> If both are too difficult, than see which is more popular and obviously that is the winner.
> 
> 
> As we all know Chris will do what is best for his customers as he always does.
> 
> His products are one of the best bang for the bucks in the industry today!!
> 
> 
> Scott



I use 16:9 and my masking panels will be the horizontal CIW type. I get what you are saying and my preference would be to have optimal AT plus a Fidelio match but I am a little concerned about a two tone masking panel. That is close to the image and I would think it would be more noticeable than dark panels farther from the actual image.


I also trust Chris's judgment on this and I will get the panels either way.


----------



## SteveHorn

"_So it would have the best AT properties available anywhere, and we'd stitch a lovely Swiss velvet leading edge to absorb those overscan pixels and give you the sharpest frame line available_."

Not sure what Chris has in mind here. My first thought was a very narrow edge, just a handful of pixels wide. But instead, maybe a leading edge, as wide as the Fidelio flavored border at top/bottom (but not wide enough to interfere with the AT aspects of the rest of the panel, i.e. get in the way of speaker placement.) That would present a 16:9 "frame" of darker material when the panels are in place. Optically, the eye might not "see" that the rest of the panel is a different shade.

But what do I know...


----------



## Kaisand

I think the "swiss velvet" he is talking about is the same width as the velvet borders on the retractables. If this is correct, the leading edge would be 2 1/2 to 3 inches wide before going into the more acoustically transparent material.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kaisand* /forum/post/18718321
> 
> 
> I think the "swiss velvet" he is talking about is the same width as the velvet borders on the retractables. If this is correct, the leading edge would be 2 1/2 to 3 inches wide before going into the more acoustically transparent material.



I hope so. That way, it might better match the 3+" width of the Fidelio-wrapped frame.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/18723316
> 
> 
> I hope so. That way, it might better match the 3+" width of the Fidelio-wrapped frame.



I was thinking narrower, since the Swiss velvet is not AT. I was thinking about 1.4" wide, but I could go up to 3.4" wide.


So you think having a really wide overscan velvet would be preferable even though you're growing the non-AT portion of the panel?


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## fight4yu

Another question.. is there also a manual way to pull up/down the screen, in case the motor breaks for the electric version?


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18724331
> 
> 
> I was thinking narrower, since the Swiss velvet is not AT. I was thinking about 1.4" wide, but I could go up to 3.4" wide.
> 
> 
> So you think having a really wide overscan velvet would be preferable even though you're growing the non-AT portion of the panel?



Well, depends how radical the shade difference between the swiss velvet and the black backing/AT panel, is. If there is a "significant" difference, (whatever that is) then my thinking is that the closer the appearance of the panel/w the SV leading edge is to the rest of the "picture frame" (top&bottom Fidelio) then a 1.78 presentation would look more like its picture framed instead of bordered two wide black panels. As far as encroaching on the AT area, my assumption was, and will be in my case, that the speakers would be outboard of the SV leading edge and inboard of the outer 2.35 side border, thus not affected by the SV much if at all. On a F115 screen, each mask panel is 14" wide. Subtract 3" for the SV edge leaves you with 11" or so of AT speaker real estate. Of course, the L&R speakers MUST be vertical. Guys with huge LRs might not make that work, but chances are the diff between 1.4" and 3.4" won't be heard. It comes down to appearance, I think.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/18727490
> 
> 
> Well, depends how radical the shade difference between the swiss velvet and the black backing/AT panel, is. If there is a "significant" difference, (whatever that is) then my thinking is that the closer the appearance of the panel/w the SV leading edge is to the rest of the "picture frame" (top&bottom Fidelio) then a 1.78 presentation would look more like its picture framed instead of bordered two wide black panels. As far as encroaching on the AT area, my assumption was, and will be in my case, that the speakers would be outboard of the SV leading edge and inboard of the outer 2.35 side border, thus not affected by the SV much if at all. On a F115 screen, each mask panel is 14" wide. Subtract 3" for the SV edge leaves you with 11" or so of AT speaker real estate. Of course, the L&R speakers MUST be vertical. Guys with huge LRs might not make that work, but chances are the diff between 1.4" and 3.4" won't be heard. It comes down to appearance, I think.



BINGO!











...Glenn


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18726598
> 
> 
> Another question.. is there also a manual way to pull up/down the screen, in case the motor breaks for the electric version?




No, it doesn't have an override. I can only remember once that it's ever been an issue, however.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## RMK!

For those considering an AT screen setup in combination with a JVC projector you should check out this thread . I held an HT Meet at my home over the weekend and all were very impressed with the the Seymour XD and the RS35. Jeff Meier (UMR/Accucal) had done a calibrated the projector the night before the meet so everything was in top form.


Couldn't be happier with the the Seymour XD fabric (although a little more gain would be nice







).


----------



## chriscmore

Hey RMK!


Sounds like the meet went well. Glad to hear how well the sound and video synced and that some of the folks saw what an AT screen can do for the entire experience.


The extrusions for the masking panels came in today, so we're cutting, dicing, and playing around with different attachment techniques. Hopefully I'll have some pics to share over the weekend.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## WilliamG

Figured I'd post an update on my SeymourAV screen experience after about a month with it.


So far, so good! For those that don't remember, I ordered the XD fabric at 85" wide (97.5" diagonal) 16:9 in retractable form. I've had some issues with the actual projectors I've been using with the screen, but it's getting worked out, and I've spent a good few hours with the screen now.


Overall, I've been quite happy with the SeymourAV screen, but I am definitely hesitant to recommend it to everyone. To most people? Sure. To everyone? I don't think so...


In fact, if I had to do it again, I'm not sure what I would do. I sit around 12 feet from the screen, and the issue I have is that after using it for a while now, it's become apparent that I can make out the screen material pretty easily. Now EVERYONE will have a different opinion on this. I'm 29 and so is my wife, and we both notice it fairly regularly. You don't see it in people's faces or on dark objects, but as soon as there's a flash of white or other solid lighter colors across the screen, the material becomes REALLY obvious. Based on what I read and heard here, I was certainly not expecting to be able to see it 12 feet away.


Is it a deal breaker? No, it's not. I wish the material were more "tight," if that makes sense, in that I wish it were more flat in appearance due to a more tightly packed material, but that would doubtless compromise the AT-ness of the material, but it's definitely something to bear in mind if you're very anal about your picture.


Aside from this, I'm enjoying the screen tremendously. It's obvious that Chris really takes his work/business seriously.


**EDIT**


I'd also like to add that I don't have much experience with screen material, so the XD material may be no worse than a "regular" screen material in terms of being able to make out the weave. I wonder about this, but will let others chime in...


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18793067
> 
> 
> Hey RMK!
> 
> 
> Sounds like the meet went well. Glad to hear how well the sound and video synced and that some of the folks saw what an AT screen can do for the entire experience.
> 
> 
> The extrusions for the masking panels came in today, so we're cutting, dicing, and playing around with different attachment techniques. Hopefully I'll have some pics to share over the weekend.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Sounds good Chris, yes the screen was very well received and virtually everyone was impressed with the image from my RS35 to the Seymour XD.


Regarding audio transparency, there were several comments about how much more immersive the HT experience is when the sound emanates from the screen. I'm looking forward to the Masking Panels.


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RMK!* /forum/post/18793186
> 
> 
> Sounds good Chris, yes the screen was very well received and virtually everyone was impressed with the image from my RS35 to the Seymour XD.
> 
> 
> Regarding audio transparency, there were several comments about how much more immersive the HT experience is when the sound emanates from the screen. I'm looking forward to the Masking Panels.



Yes, audio transparency is awesome. Only my center channel is behind the screen, but that really is the most important channel to be hidden, since, for the first time, the people on the screen really do appear to be talking naturally!


----------



## laugsbach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WilliamG* /forum/post/18793094
> 
> 
> I'm 29 and so is my wife, and we both notice it fairly regularly.



You have really good eyes...my front row is 12' and I can't see the weave on my 115" wide 2.35:1 screen with a Panasonic AE-3000. Of course, my eyes are 21 years older!


Did you notice a difference between the Epson & Panasonic projectors?


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *laugsbach* /forum/post/18794209
> 
> 
> You have really good eyes...my front row is 12' and I can't see the weave on my 115" wide 2.35:1 screen with a Panasonic AE-3000. Of course, my eyes are 21 years older!
> 
> 
> Did you notice a difference between the Epson & Panasonic projectors?



A difference in seeing the weave? No, not at all.


----------



## laugsbach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WilliamG* /forum/post/18794879
> 
> 
> A difference in seeing the weave? No, not at all.



Thanks...


----------



## SteveHorn

I had previously "test driven" a 2ft sq swatch of XD, comparing it with smaller samples from Screen Excellence and Target (bed sheet!). The projector was a JVC DLA HD950. Seating dist was 12'. I only occasionally noticed any weave in the XD and not enough to be bothersome. But I'm old. A younger person, or someone with better eyesight might have different results. I think the moral here is that anyone planning to use AT screen material, woven or perf, should try it with their projector and room, at their planned throw and seating distance before spending big bucks for the whole screen.


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WilliamG* /forum/post/18794879
> 
> 
> A difference in seeing the weave? No, not at all.



I'm sorry that you have this issue with the visibility of the weave. I am @ 13' and can't see it. None of my guests at my recent GTG mentioned that as an issue and many had much younger eyes than mine







. It may be that your eagle eyes are just too good for AT.


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RMK!* /forum/post/18806095
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that you have this issue with the visibility of the weave. I am @ 13' and can't see it. None of my guests at my recent GTG mentioned that as an issue and many had much younger eyes than mine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . It may be that your eagle eyes are just too good for AT.



It's not really a big issue. I can make out the weave on some screens in cinemas, too.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WilliamG* /forum/post/18806105
> 
> 
> It's not really a big issue. I can make out the weave on some screens in cinemas, too.



Wow, can you see thru people's clothing too?


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/18807958
> 
> 
> Wow, can you see thru people's clothing too?



A very good question. The answer is, yes, if they're see-thru.


----------



## chriscmore

I have some fixed frame panel pictures to share. They've turned out great and we're having a good time playing with them. After further testing and experimentation, we decided to upgrade the one-color, less-AT, to a full Fidelio velvet which perfectly matches the frame and is the most absorbant stuff in the world (fellow geeks: that's larger than about one square inch). It didn't make much sense to be somewhat AT - either someone needs it or not. So in the case where a mid/high speaker isn't behind the panel, why mess with perfection?


For those that need their panels to be as acoustically transparent as possible, the velvet and black backing combination is killer. You get a 3.5" wide Swiss velvet to absorb the overscan and match the frame, and only a 0.3dB (300 Millibels, mates...) attenuation. Inaudible, and for that matter difficult to measure.


Here is a snapshot of two panels with a WhiBal card for color correction.










Here is a snapshot of a 2.4 ratio screen, with a Fidelio panel inserted on the left, and a Millibel panel on the right. This is what the screen would look like in daylight, however keep in mind that if your ambient light is high enough to see how different they look, then you can likely count your contrast ratio on your fingers. In a dark room, they are very difficult to tell apart.










The CIH panels are now available, but the CIW panels will take a bit more playing around with to finalize.


----------



## fight4yu

Chris, are you going to make one for the electric version, or will this work for the electric version too?


----------



## SteveHorn

The AT panel:
























From the web site, it sounds like the panels just "sit" inside the existing frame. What keeps them there?


Anything to the assembly of them worth mentioning? Same frame-and-o-ring design?


edit: How wide is the frame on the 3.5" velvet side of the AT panel? That is, how wide is the AT "hole"?

(I'm trying to see if my L&R speakers will fit with a totally unobstructed "view".)


Well done!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/18814540
> 
> 
> The AT panel:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the web site, it sounds like the panels just "sit" inside the existing frame. What keeps them there?
> 
> 
> Anything to the assembly of them worth mentioning? Same frame-and-o-ring design?
> 
> 
> edit: How wide is the frame on the 3.5" velvet side of the AT panel? That is, how wide is the AT "hole"?
> 
> (I'm trying to see if my L&R speakers will fit with a totally unobstructed "view".)
> 
> 
> Well done!



Friction keeps them in place. They're slightly compressed for a precise interference fit.


No assembly required. Since they are relatively small and thus easy to ship, these come fully assembled and ready to use.


The frame is the same on the inner edge, at 1.2" wide, but I'd consider the 3.5" velvet leading edge to be the non-AT zone. I could narrow this, but certain people voted for a width matching the frame.


Cheers,


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18814221
> 
> 
> Chris, are you going to make one for the electric version, or will this work for the electric version too?



No plans for an electric version. If you don't need AT, I'd recommend the Carada system, which fits over our screens nicely.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

I was comparing your backing material to GOM 701 Black for my screen wall. By the looks of it your backing is quiet a bit more glossy/shinny then the GOM, and the blackness (is that a word??) is about the same, your backing might be slightly more black.


Just wondering what your thoughts are on the shinny backing having more reflection -vrs- the 701 when using it for screen wall or masking. I am building my own electric masking and want to use all the same material for screen wall and masking to it all blends. I have the 701 Black already and then happen to think I have your screen material with black backing sitting in the corner yet so I was comparing the two.


----------



## rolette




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18814193
> 
> 
> The CIH panels are now available



I really like the look of the Fidelio panels, so I went up to see where my speakers lined up relative to the edge of my screen. After peaking under the screen, I'm afraid I'll end up with the 3.5" frame piece partially overlapping my in-wall speakers.


Can you let me know how wide the panels are for an F120 screen?


Thanks,

Jay


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18816248
> 
> 
> ... I could narrow this, but certain people voted for a width matching the frame.



















In laying out the screen wall, I was considering the possibility of having to trim the (speaker-side) edge of the inner-most frame members to allow clearance for the mid range cones in my speakers. But if the inner frame is only 1.2" (as I suspected) the only encroachment will be a very small portion (0.7") of the velvet "leading edge". No worries.

Thanks!


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rolette* /forum/post/18816864
> 
> 
> ... Can you let me know how wide the panels are for an F120 screen?



Rolette, the one I'm planning is an F115. They way I calc it, a 16:9 image will be 87" wide (1.78x48.9" CIH ht). 115"-87"=28". So each panel's full width would be 14". In your case...

51" htx1.78=90.78", the width of a 1.78 image

120"-90.78"= 29.22", the total width of both L & R mask panels

Each panel would then need to be 29.22"/2=14.61".

So each mask's frame "hole" would then be 14.61" - (2x1.2")=12.21" wide. But that does not account for the added 2.3" (3.5" velvet width -1.2" frame width) of velvet. The AT "hole" would then be 14.61"-1.2"-3.5" = 9.91"


But that's just the way I figured it. I could be wrong... am most of the time. I should let Chris answer...


----------



## fight4yu

Hi. Just got my screen setup. I cannot see the weave pattern, even close to like 10', but my room is dim.


Screen looks great, but I have some waves around the corner. The manual told me to "tighten" the horizontal turnbuckles. However, I have a hard time understanding how to tighten it. Is there any tool needed to tighten it? what part to "turn"? Can someone explain the steps? I try to use my finger to "turn" the screw part that connect to the plastic, but it is very tight... What should I do?


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18823458
> 
> 
> Hi. Just got my screen setup. I cannot see the weave pattern, even close to like 10', but my room is dim.
> 
> 
> Screen looks great, but I have some waves around the corner. The manual told me to "tighten" the horizontal turnbuckles. However, I have a hard time understanding how to tighten it. Is there any tool needed to tighten it? what part to "turn"? Can someone explain the steps? I try to use my finger to "turn" the screw part that connect to the plastic, but it is very tight... What should I do?



When I posed this question, I found out that if it's tight already then there's nothing much you can do to tighten the turnbuckles. HOWEVER, be aware that if you see waves with the lights on, you may not see them at all with the lights off and your projector on. That's how it was for me. I definitely have some waves around the corners/sides, but they are 100% invisible with the lights off and projector on...


----------



## fight4yu

OK. Sorry guys. I finally figure out how to do it. I need to get a small piler and put it inside that turnbuckle and tighten it. It works perfect now!


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18823488
> 
> 
> OK. Sorry guys. I finally figure out how to do it. I need to get a small piler and put it inside that turnbuckle and tighten it. It works perfect now!



Oh, then it was clearly able to be tightened some more. Nice job!


----------



## fight4yu

Thanks WilliamG. Lucky for me, I am loosening the vertical one, and that solves my problem... I did a few tightening on the horizontal as well to make it "perfect".


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18823493
> 
> 
> Thanks WilliamG. Lucky for me, I am loosening the vertical one, and that solves my problem... I did a few tightening on the horizontal as well to make it "perfect".



Nice! I have a fairly substantial drop on my retractable screen, so I couldn't eliminate all the waves in a lit room, but in my "movie mode" with all the curtains closed etc, it's perfect, too.


----------



## rolette

120" wide, 2.35 Seymour AV screen installed and in action:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post18857332 


Not a new install, but finally got pictures up.


Jay


----------



## clubguy

Asked to post a few pictures by bayn, here they are:


oops not enough posts to show link, will try again


Very pleased with the SeymourAV AT 100 inch wide screen. Went with electric and trigger off of the Panasonic AE4000. Service was excellent from Chris and more importantly consulting with Chris was invaluable to determine options and size for the setup.


----------



## clubguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WilliamG* /forum/post/18402384
> 
> 
> How did you set this up to work? I've got my Panasonic 4000 projector on the way to me, and I'd love it to trigger the SeymourAV screen to come down!



Sorry I didn't realize I had a message at this site. You have likely figured out a way to trigger your screen, but in case you haven't. I used bell wire, two conductor, connected to the "eye" port module and placed an 1/8" mono plug at the other end and inserted that into the Panasonic Trigger 1 slot in the back. I programmed Trigger 1 to power on when the projector is turned on.

Hope that helps.


----------



## clubguy

upgrade to Panasonic AE4000 and Seymour screen:

http://riccims.readyhosting.com/cote/theater


----------



## chriscmore

Hey clubguy -


Excellent man-cave. I like the dual-screen approach, with a tv in the back for the less critical content, and the screen dropping though the ceiling for proper films.


I'd suggest you try to sneak something as dark and matte as possible on your ceiling in between your screen and maybe to the lights. The screen is scattering light everywhere and you're getting a lot of light bounce-back from those white ceiling tiles nearest the screen. You'd be surprised at the contrast boost you could achieve.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## 230-SEAN

Finished mine a few weeks back. I love it! Grommets are the way to go if you are contemplating this screen material.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1258660 


-Sean


----------



## fight4yu

I also had a 100" wide AT 16:9 screen. Screen looks wonderful, although on the bottom right corner, it is not completely 90 degree.. It looks like the white material get stretched a bit to the right... any idea if this is normal manufacturing or I tighten the horizontal side too much? (I do not see any waving though).


----------



## clubguy

Thanks Chris, definitely agree, probably wouldn't take a lot of effort to spray paint flat black to the tiles and grid work out several feet.


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *clubguy* /forum/post/18883515
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris, definitely agree, probably wouldn't take a lot of effort to spray paint flat black to the tiles and grid work out several feet.



Or buy black ones. They are cheap!!!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18881784
> 
> 
> I also had a 100" wide AT 16:9 screen. Screen looks wonderful, although on the bottom right corner, it is not completely 90 degree.. It looks like the white material get stretched a bit to the right... any idea if this is normal manufacturing or I tighten the horizontal side too much? (I do not see any waving though).



That's normal for a retractable. There is enough tension in the corners to stretch the otherwise not very stretchable material about 0.1" It's a key to corner flatness and velvety goodness.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

Finally got my screen made from the XD material. It is 144x60 and I made it using a window screen channel mounted to a maple frame. Went pretty well and was able to get it good and tight with no wrinkles. Actually the black backing went in easier then the screen its self. But I think this is because the black backing is installed square and the screen material I did at and angle. Pictures to come in the near future I hope.


----------



## fight4yu

Thanks Chris! I agree it is maybe only 0.1-0.2" over, but it sort of bug me







maybe I can just cut a small black tape to make it align.. or I just get used to it











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18886997
> 
> 
> That's normal for a retractable. There is enough tension in the corners to stretch the otherwise not very stretchable material about 0.1" It's a key to corner flatness and velvety goodness.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


----------



## premiertrussman

Chris,


I just started doing research on AT screens and whats available when i came across this thread and the seymour av website. I'm really impressed just from the support and rave reviews that your customers have given you. Couple that with your obvious passion and dedication to A/V, it seems you've come up with a solid product. I've chuckled several times at various humorous things in the website and in your posts, but once i saw the picture of Chuck...i knew a SeymourAV screen was the only thing I could possibly use.


So...the question is...will you still sell me a screen even if my center speaker has horizontally oriented drivers?




















*Edit


Do you know where one could find a higher resolution image of that picture...i need a new desktop background.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *premiertrussman* /forum/post/18899888
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> I just started doing research on AT screens and whats available when i came across this thread and the seymour av website. I'm really impressed just from the support and rave reviews that your customers have given you. Couple that with your obvious passion and dedication to A/V, it seems you've come up with a solid product. I've chuckled several times at various humorous things in the website and in your posts, but once i saw the picture of Chuck...i knew a SeymourAV screen was the only thing I could possibly use.
> 
> 
> So...the question is...will you still sell me a screen even if my center speaker has horizontally oriented drivers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit
> 
> 
> Do you know where one could find a higher resolution image of that picture...i need a new desktop background.



It's from Invasion USA I can give you that much


----------



## msmCutter

Also, I heard a rumor that you guys where starting to carry the E4K super fine screens. Is that the case? Will you sell DIY fabric?


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msmCutter* /forum/post/18899985
> 
> 
> Also, I heard a rumor that you guys where starting to carry the E4K super fine screens. Is that the case? Will you sell DIY fabric?



That would be killer


----------



## msmCutter

Totally. MUCH better company this.


----------



## Doug G

Just found Seymour listed on the SE site in the dealer network as the USA manufacturing partner! They had this link. 


Does this mean I need to upgrade my XD retractable already?!?!










Chris - Can you fill us in? Does this mean you are making SE screens, or are you just now using the SE material in the current line? Will there be an upgrade discount for any of us XD owners who may wish to upgrade?


Interested to hear the details as I'm sure others are, as well.


----------



## premiertrussman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/18899919
> 
> 
> It's from Invasion USA I can give you that much



AAAANDDD thank you!


----------



## msmCutter

:haha:


----------



## premiertrussman

Chuck Norris says "Seymour screens....better than a roundhouse kick to the face"



*not an official endorsement of Seymour screens by Chuck Norris.


----------



## ilpostini2

is it possible to buy Center Stage XD material with black backing with grommets attached?

I have a Vutec 92" Dia. frame I would like to use. The Vutec frame comes with velcro and I would have to attach Velcro to the Center Stage XD material and thought it might be easier to retrofit the frame with o rings and try your grommet way of attachment.

In your opinion, would this be the way to go?

Thanks


----------



## ilpostini2

I got an answer by email from Chris.

Looks like the grommet route is going to be the way to go.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *premiertrussman* /forum/post/18899888
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> I just started doing research on AT screens and whats available when i came across this thread and the seymour av website. I'm really impressed just from the support and rave reviews that your customers have given you. Couple that with your obvious passion and dedication to A/V, it seems you've come up with a solid product. I've chuckled several times at various humorous things in the website and in your posts, but once i saw the picture of Chuck...i knew a SeymourAV screen was the only thing I could possibly use.
> 
> 
> So...the question is...will you still sell me a screen even if my center speaker has horizontally oriented drivers?



I think Chuck only endorses roundhouse kicks and Texas justice.


Glad you enjoy the site. I try to keep it respectably factual enough, although I try to amuse myself. Even though they say it can make you go blind...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Doug G* /forum/post/18900146
> 
> 
> Just found Seymour listed on the SE site in the dealer network as the USA manufacturing partner! They had this link.
> 
> 
> Does this mean I need to upgrade my XD retractable already?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris - Can you fill us in? Does this mean you are making SE screens, or are you just now using the SE material in the current line? Will there be an upgrade discount for any of us XD owners who may wish to upgrade?
> 
> 
> Interested to hear the details as I'm sure others are, as well.



Hi Doug -


Currently, we're importing Screen Excellence products from the England factory until we fire up each product line to be made here in the US (minus Mr. Norris). The first product will be the fixed frame screens in August. Retractables will be in September. Currently, we're working on using the 4K material in a retractable, but it's too early to tell if it will make the cut.


We now have lots of screen materials to choose from, but the two best are the XD and the 4K. The XD is the best for larger screens where gain is an issue or ~11' back or further sitting distances. The ISF-certified 4K is incredible, but the main advantages are realized in smaller screens where gain isn't an issue, and


----------



## msmCutter

When will you actually start selling them? Any prices yet?


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Let's just hope that the prices are MUCH MORE affordable then before!











...Glenn


----------



## msmCutter

...what he said.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/18904588
> 
> 
> Let's just hope that the prices are MUCH MORE affordable then before!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



They'll be more affordable because there are many efficiencies we can bring to the product, but understand that there are substantial differences in costs. The designs are more complexed and the sales and installation support channels are mandatory.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## fight4yu

Is there going to be a "gray" or "high-contrast" type of version available as well?

Given PJ these days are more and more powerful in terms of lumens, gains might not as critical as before.. Contrast on the other hand is another story..


----------



## premiertrussman

Chris,


Is 9' too close to sit to the XD material. I've read that 10' is recommended, but I've heard from a couple different people that can see the weave when the PJ is off from a further distance but it disappears once there is an image on the screen. Im not concerned with how the screen looks when the PJ is off only about how it looks once we get down to business. The plan is for the panny ae4000 pj and about 110" diagonal 2.35 screen. 9' and some change is the maximum distance i can get and still do two rows seating. So im wondering what your input would be on viewing from that distance.


Keep in mind this is my first PJ and screen and im coming from a 42" panny plasma, so im sure anything will look incredible.



*edit


Screen size is negotiable. I just did a quick calculation and realized than 110'" at 2.35 from 9' away is about a 50 degree viewing angle. So i guess that maybe a bit bigger than ideal?


----------



## fight4yu

If the scene is a large patch of solid color (like snow, people with white shirt etc), I think you will see it at 9'. Even I am sitting at 13' away, I can sometimes see it if it is "bright" enough. In scenes that are more complex and more color and pattern, I think you will just be immersed in the movie and won't bother much.


I have a 115" diagonal 16:9 screen, so I think that's the same as your 110" diagonal 2:35:1 screen (H100). When I am watching 2:35:1, I do have black bars, and I can tell you that when I am sitting at 13' away, it is a bit "small"







I can certainly sit a few ft closer and not mind much. So, I think 9' for your case should not be an issue. After a while, you just get used to it and it will not be that big...





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *premiertrussman* /forum/post/18905309
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Is 9' too close to sit to the XD material. I've read that 10' is recommended, but I've heard from a couple different people that can see the weave when the PJ is off from a further distance but it disappears once there is an image on the screen. Im not concerned with how the screen looks when the PJ is off only about how it looks once we get down to business. The plan is for the panny ae4000 pj and about 110" diagonal 2.35 screen. 9' and some change is the maximum distance i can get and still do two rows seating. So im wondering what your input would be on viewing from that distance.
> 
> 
> Keep in mind this is my first PJ and screen and im coming from a 42" panny plasma, so im sure anything will look incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> *edit
> 
> 
> Screen size is negotiable. I just did a quick calculation and realized than 110'" at 2.35 from 9' away is about a 50 degree viewing angle. So i guess that maybe a bit bigger than ideal?


----------



## premiertrussman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18905543
> 
> 
> If the scene is a large patch of solid color (like snow, people with white shirt etc), I think you will see it at 9'. Even I am sitting at 13' away, I can sometimes see it if it is "bright" enough. In scenes that are more complex and more color and pattern, I think you will just be immersed in the movie and won't bother much.
> 
> 
> I have a 115" diagonal 16:9 screen, so I think that's the same as your 110" diagonal 2:35:1 screen (H100). When I am watching 2:35:1, I do have black bars, and I can tell you that when I am sitting at 13' away, it is a bit "small"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can certainly sit a few ft closer and not mind much. So, I think 9' for your case should not be an issue. After a while, you just get used to it and it will not be that big...



Thanks for the input. I've been torn on screen size for a while now. I keep finding new information from different sources and new testimonies. I heard that no one ever complains about their screen being TOO big, but at the same time there are so many suggestions about minimum seating distances etc. Thanks again for the input.


----------



## umr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *premiertrussman* /forum/post/18905612
> 
> 
> Thanks for the input. I've been torn on screen size for a while now. I keep finding new information from different sources and new testimonies. I heard that no one ever complains about their screen being TOO big, but at the same time there are so many suggestions about minimum seating distances etc. Thanks again for the input.



Most people have few references other than their own theater to go by. I definitely seen many screens that are too big.


----------



## chriscmore

premiertrussman-


What is your second row seating distance? Which row is the "money seat"? Sometimes the front row is just for kids, sometimes it's the "money seat", and with scope screens sometimes it's the first row for 16:9 and the second row for 2.35.


In general, I like to keep people to a 45 degree field of viewing or smaller for scope (40 max for 16:9) to keep image fidelity, apparent resolution up, smooth motion and overall fidelity. For your 9', that means that a 90" WIDE image would be 45 degrees. That's likely too small for 16:9 (35 degrees), especially for a second row, even if you have your plasma for that content.


The best approach is to throw a temporary image on a wall or bedsheet and dial in what works best for you in a variety of content and seating locations.


9' is a little close for the XD material but I do have a lot of folks at that distance. People are sensitive to different aspects of an image, so maybe check out a sample first.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Jedirun

My DIY Screen is done.


New front stage.











Here it is with the screen installed.











In retrospect, given the time I spent I probably should have just sprung for a finished screen. (They are so reasonably priced.) However, the finished product turned out great and the picture and sound are awesome. I can't wait to have some friends over to show it off.


I sit about 9 feet from the screen, and if I try, I can barely make out the texture at times, but it is so minimal that it is not noticable if you are not trying to look for it.


Here is the thread detailing how I made my screen. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1252857


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18906007
> 
> 
> premiertrussman-
> 
> ...
> 
> The best approach is to throw a temporary image on a wall or bedsheet and dial in what works best for you in a variety of content and seating locations.



I second that. Go to Hancock Fabrics or whatever is local to you, and buy 4 yds of 100% polyester white. It'll cost you about $20. (Curiously, its texture is not too different than SE 4K, though there's no tellin' how AT it is.). Then just hang it up on your to-be screen wall and experiment with your zoom control. Also, get a sample of XD from Chris ($20) and check out its texture at various distances.)


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18905170
> 
> 
> Is there going to be a "gray" or "high-contrast" type of version available as well?
> 
> Given PJ these days are more and more powerful in terms of lumens, gains might not as critical as before.. Contrast on the other hand is another story..



The "other story" is that current pjs offer far better contrast than even in the recent past.

IMO, Grey screens are a thing of the past, dim the image too much and compromise color far too much.

Even lower priced PJs like the AE-4000 offer contrast that blows away top PJs of a few years ago.

Ask Chris or David Giles or Ruben what percentage of their sales are grey screens.


----------



## premiertrussman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18906007
> 
> 
> premiertrussman-
> 
> 
> What is your second row seating distance? Which row is the "money seat"? Sometimes the front row is just for kids, sometimes it's the "money seat", and with scope screens sometimes it's the first row for 16:9 and the second row for 2.35.
> 
> 
> In general, I like to keep people to a 45 degree field of viewing or smaller for scope (40 max for 16:9) to keep image fidelity, apparent resolution up, smooth motion and overall fidelity. For your 9', that means that a 90" WIDE image would be 45 degrees. That's likely too small for 16:9 (35 degrees), especially for a second row, even if you have your plasma for that content.
> 
> 
> The best approach is to throw a temporary image on a wall or bedsheet and dial in what works best for you in a variety of content and seating locations.
> 
> 
> 9' is a little close for the XD material but I do have a lot of folks at that distance. People are sensitive to different aspects of an image, so maybe check out a sample first.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Chris,

Thanks for the input. Likely my situation will be like what you said, Good seats in the front for 16:9 and in the back for scope. The back row screen to eye will be about 6' back at 15' (and some change.) When the time comes it looks like ill just need to get a sample and see for myself.


Last quick question, if i understood it right, the center stage XD material (paired with a panasonic projector) probably does not need to be tilted?



Thanks


Matt


----------



## premiertrussman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/18907478
> 
> 
> I second that. Go to Hancock Fabrics or whatever is local to you, and buy 4 yds of 100% polyester white. It'll cost you about $20. (Curiously, its texture is not too different than SE 4K, though there's no tellin' how AT it is.). Then just hang it up on your to-be screen wall and experiment with your zoom control. Also, get a sample of XD from Chris ($20) and check out its texture at various distances.)



I think JoAnns is most prevalent in this area. I think ill do that.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *premiertrussman* /forum/post/18908120
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Thanks for the input. Likely my situation will be like what you said, Good seats in the front for 16:9 and in the back for scope. The back row screen to eye will be about 6' back at 15' (and some change.) When the time comes it looks like ill just need to get a sample and see for myself.
> 
> 
> Last quick question, if i understood it right, the center stage XD material (paired with a panasonic projector) probably does not need to be tilted?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Matt



When I ordered my XD material, I asked the same question. His response was if there is room to tilt, you might as well tilt to be on the safe side (ie: if the screen size you want allows a tilt within the size of fabric you're ordering, either 63" wide or 98" wide). So, with that advice, I had it tilted.


-Sean


----------



## fight4yu

newbie here.. why do people tilt their screen, and how do you do that?


----------



## SteveHorn

Tilting the fabric in the frame (typically 15 to 20 degrees) is intended to eliminate or reduce any possibility of a  moire pattern from fixed pixel projectors. Some projectors (such as JVCs, others) do not require a tilt of the fabric, but as Chris pointed out, it cannot hurt.


----------



## Milt99

Hey Chris, a question.

Doesn't Screen Excellence offer the "Craftsman" option?

DIY, fabric only.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18912645
> 
> 
> newbie here.. why do people tilt their screen, and how do you do that?



It's only an issue for retractables and the DIY order that's needing to save scrap/cost. Tilt just means that we cut the screen's rectangle out at an angle with respect to the roll, so the threads/holes aren't horizontal/vertical, but are skewed at an angle. Doing that makes the screen 100% projector proof, and we do it standard when we make the fixed frame screens. Not having to worry about it is our focus, which is unfortunately a bit over-discussed because of all the DIY applications out there.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *premiertrussman* /forum/post/18908120
> 
> 
> Last quick question, if i understood it right, the center stage XD material (paired with a panasonic projector) probably does not need to be tilted?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Matt



If you were to stay at ~95" or more image width, then yeah - the Panny runs great with no tilt to the screen material cut. However, since you're doing 2.35, the width of your 16:9 image would only be around 72" wide. That's packing the pixels tight, and I'd only feel safe if you either did the tilt or proved with a sample that it's ok.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/18912890
> 
> 
> Hey Chris, a question.
> 
> Doesn't Screen Excellence offer the "Craftsman" option?
> 
> DIY, fabric only.



Yes, but I don't know how well that worked out. What I can tell is that it's not an appropriate band-aid for a mispositioned fixed frame screen line.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## premiertrussman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18912956
> 
> 
> If you were to stay at ~95" or more image width, then yeah - the Panny runs great with no tilt to the screen material cut. However, since you're doing 2.35, the width of your 16:9 image would only be around 72" wide. That's packing the pixels tight, and I'd only feel safe if you either did the tilt or proved with a sample that it's ok.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



When the time comes ill pop for a decent size sample. Or i could just go with a bigger screen...1 row of seating...and make everyone else sit on the floor....


----------



## TFM

hi everyone,


Chris, thanks for the great product and advice. The material is easy to work with and good quality.


I have a 120" XD material DIY screen and a Panny 4000, is it just me or is there missing some POP to the colours. If anybody has a similar set-up please share your thoughts.


For some movies this is perfect, it looks almost better than in the theatre, but for other material it just leaves me wanting more. For example watching the Planet blu-rays last night and I kept thinking the sand or the sea should pop a little more at me, it was missing that wow effect. I tried playing with the settings even created some of my own, this helped a little but I keep thinking it has somehitng to do with the actual screen, because every scene has the same lack of pop... not sure if I am explaning myself correctly.


Any ideas guys?


----------



## scottyb

Sounds like you need a DLP projector.

Our screen has plenty of "POP" but we run a DLP.


----------



## TFM

funny you mention that, my previous pj was an infocus X! which was DLP, and although it did not have the same accuracy and detail as the Panny, it did seem to have more POP, especially when viewing sports.


----------



## fight4yu

Hey Chris. I have a question on my screen height. I got the H100, 16:9 ratio, so the height should be 100*9/16 = 56.25". I measured mine and it is only about 55.6-55.7".. so I am missing about half an inch. The width is spot on though, at almost exactly 100".. This require me to zoom out a bit to cover the top and bottom, not a big deal, but just wondering if this is normal?


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18918191
> 
> 
> ... so the height should be 100*9/16 = 56.25". I measured mine and it is only about 55.6-55.7"...



Well, that's interesting, since their web site lists the image height of your screen to be 56.3". Makes me wonder about their other listed measurements. I'll be interested in the answer since I'm planning my screen wall now using their measurements to place speakers behind an F115 AT screen. (Of course if _only_ the height is "off", that should not affect my speaker placement. But width issues could, since the clearances behind the mask panels are small.


----------



## fight4yu

At least in my retractable H100 case, the width is spot on (less than 0.1 inch), and the border is also spot on at about 2 inches wide. The only "problem" for me is the height, which is shorter by 0.5 inch.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/18918191
> 
> 
> Hey Chris. I have a question on my screen height. I got the H100, 16:9 ratio, so the height should be 100*9/16 = 56.25". I measured mine and it is only about 55.6-55.7".. so I am missing about half an inch. The width is spot on though, at almost exactly 100".. This require me to zoom out a bit to cover the top and bottom, not a big deal, but just wondering if this is normal?



For all 16:9 and 2.35 images, we truncate to the tenth of an inch. So 56.25" would be 56.2". This is done because content for those screens errs in the side of being wider aspect ratios. For all 2.37, 2.39, and 2.40 images we round to the tenth because those are more nominal to that group of content.


For retractables only, we shave another 0.2" off the image height by design, in order to average and place stresses on the fabrics where I want them and to account for how the sides are constructed. I don't want to go into detail on why those are done. There are a lot of tricks I've learned in making these and improving their stress distribution. Keep in mind it's a complexed set of assembled, different fabrics, not just a painted square of vinyl.


I will revise the posted height dimensions on the site to reflect what we do.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## ExToker

I hung a 110" Center Stage screen last year and have been quite happy with the results.


My Center Channel is behind the screen, horizontal (sorry Chris, I know) and about 2" off of the Seymour CS. Black speaker cloth as a backing.


I have come up with some 2" OC703 and feel behind the screen around the speaker might be a good place for it with my setup.


Am I missing anything where this might be a bad idea?


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ExToker* /forum/post/18928388
> 
> 
> I hung a 110" Center Stage screen last year and have been quite happy with the results.
> 
> 
> My Center Channel is behind the screen, horizontal (sorry Chris, I know) and about 2" off of the Seymour CS. Black speaker cloth as a backing.
> 
> 
> I have come up with some 2" OC703 and feel behind the screen around the speaker might be a good place for it with my setup.
> 
> 
> Am I missing anything where this might be a bad idea?



That is pretty typical I think. My entire wall behind the screen is covered in 703


----------



## Scamps

On average, what distance do you need between the Front L/R speakers and a CS fixed frame screen?


I'll be using Axiom M80's for the Front L/R and Center channel driven at a volume sure to give the cat permanent hearing loss and bring a divorce decree from my wife.


----------



## scottyb

You can go as low as a few inches. Ours is 3" away and it sounds great.


Scott


----------



## bfisherjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/18928630
> 
> 
> That is pretty typical I think. My entire wall behind the screen is covered in 703



Mine too...



> Quote:
> On average, what distance do you need between the Front L/R speakers and a CS fixed frame screen?



Mine is less than 2" from screen - no issues.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

Got my theater about done with a 142" wide XD screen. Works and looks great. Now got to find time to watch a movie.


----------



## ExToker

You dont need a movie for entertainment Mudder. Just sit and look at your room









Very Nice!


----------



## fight4yu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/18940553
> 
> 
> Got my theater about done with a 142" wide XD screen. Works and looks great. Now got to find time to watch a movie.



Lovely lovely lovely.. especially love the ceiling and effect! Good job, and try not to spend 24 hrs a day in the theater room.. There are still something out there


----------



## pgjensen

Okay, so I'm getting a Panasonic 4000 and am doing this in a low-light basement. There are just 3 small escape windows that can be easily blacked out. I want 16x9. I have determined a white screen is best for me since it's in a low/no light room. I have looked at Elite, Da-Lite and SeymourAV so far. I still haven't seen any in person, but I have no reference anyways since this is my first setup.

*I can't decide if I should go with a 120" A/V screen for perfect placement of speakers & screen for more money, or if I should just go with a smaller regular 110" screen and put the speakers behind the faux wall and be off center a little more. Also, would I gain any PQ by going with a regular screen vs AV?*


The closest seats will be about 7 to 8' from the screen. The Rear seats (where we'll be mostly when no guests are there) will be around 12-14' from the screen. I only have about 8.5' of room for seating on the side wall since I need room to walk by on the right side (about 2-2.5'). We'll be slightly off center (about 1' to 1.5' width off) with a regular screen.


I'm having a hard time dropping so much money ($1100) for a 16x9 120" screen. If I just buy the screen material and DIY on the frame, it seems very reasonable ($20/linear ft for screen & backing = ~$400?). Is my calculation there correct? Any thoughts on how I could change my setup plan or which way to go?


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pgjensen* /forum/post/18961076
> 
> 
> Okay, so I'm getting a Panasonic 4000 and am doing this in a low-light basement. There are just 3 small escape windows that can be easily blacked out. I want 16x9. I have determined a white screen is best for me since it's in a low/no light room. I have looked at Elite, Da-Lite and SeymourAV so far. I still haven't seen any in person, but I have no reference anyways since this is my first setup.
> 
> *I can't decide if I should go with a 120" A/V screen for perfect placement of speakers & screen for more money, or if I should just go with a smaller regular 110" screen and put the speakers behind the faux wall and be off center a little more. Also, would I gain any PQ by going with a regular screen vs AV?*
> 
> 
> The closest seats will be about 7 to 8' from the screen. The Rear seats (where we'll be mostly when no guests are there) will be around 12-14' from the screen. I only have about 8.5' of room for seating on the side wall since I need room to walk by on the right side (about 2-2.5'). We'll be slightly off center (about 1' to 1.5' width off) with a regular screen.
> 
> 
> I'm having a hard time dropping so much money ($1100) for a 16x9 120" screen. If I just buy the screen material and DIY on the frame, it seems very reasonable ($20/linear ft for screen & backing = ~$400?). Is my calculation there correct? Any thoughts on how I could change my setup plan or which way to go?



Getting the center channel behind the screen is the biggest thing, that is what you want. If the L/R are slightly off to the sides of the screen it is not too big of a deal. When I run in 16:9 mode my sides are out side the screen, but when I run in 2.35 they are behind the screen. Either way sounds great. My first row is about 12' from the screen and it look killer, no complaints here. Oh I have the Panny 400 also, I would recomend getting the wider material so you can tilt the screen, just to be safe.


----------



## scottyb

I've posted numerous times, moving our speakers behind the screen was one of the best moves we've made in our HT. You sacrifice a TINY bit of video quality but gain LARGE amounts of audio placement.


Scott


----------



## SteveHorn

Before you spring big bucks for whatever size, I suggest you cobble together a cheap screen using whatever material you find at your local Hancock/Jo-Ann/Hobby Lobby store. Each run sales of material that could pass for screen fabric. If your to-be screen wall will allow, place your speakers and buy fabric that tends toward acoustic transparency. You can get white polyester fabric for $4+ per yard. That will get you a decent sized screen that you can use to test 1.78 vs. 2.35, speaker placement, screen width, etc. You don't even need a frame; just tack it up (tightly) to your target screen wall. Of course, you can get carried away, as I did, and build a temp DIY frame, wrap it with velvet (Hobby Lobby, Jo-Ann, Hancock), tack your screen fabric to the back of it, hang it on the wall and experiment. Also, several of the screen manufs. will sell small samples of screen fabrics. This is highly recommended, to check for its appearance in your space.


----------



## pgjensen

it would certainly help my screen placement since my seats have to hug the wall and it'd keep my right front speaker from being too far to the right.


so is getting the material probably my best bet to save money since i'm building a faux wall? I can just build the screen with some 1x4" boards and allow it to drop in to the wall or something like that. I"m just worried about getting it 100% flat.


and are all of the SeymourAV screens acoustic?


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

I used this stuff: http://www.screentight.com/prod-screen-tight.shtml 


Just need the base though not the cap. Has two channels so you can put the black backing in one and the screen in the other.


----------



## stevethx

Hi

Does the screentight track and spline come rolled or flat?

Does anyone know where I could get some shipped to New Zealand?

Maybe one of you guys might be able to help me procure some,more than happy to pay for your time.

Cheer's Steve.


----------



## SteveHorn

Another option would be this stuff or this . Found these listed over in the dedicated Theater design and construction subforum.


----------



## ExToker

I did something similar to what Mudders product provided, the 2 channels.

I used 1 x 4s and cut 2 slots down the length of each piece with a table saw, about 3/8" deep.


Using window screen spline (size ss165? fits the slot that has been cut), you can roll the fabric(s) in like a window screen and staple the spline once you are happy with the fit. Black backing first to the inside kerf, and then the screen fabric over that to the outside cut.


You can cut a small piece of wood with the slots, and take that and pieces of the fabric, to a local hardware store to confirm the correct size spline.

Screen roller and spline should cost about 15 bucks.


Worked great as you can go back and adjust any specific section if you are not happy with it. Staple the spline (or small brads) when you are satisfied.


----------



## yamahaSHO

I put up my XD screen and frame a few weeks ago and I can honestly say I would never not do an AT screen after having the center speaker behind the screen.


I suppose I could have gone wall-to-wall and got all the speakers behind the screen, but this still makes my 52" TV look like a computer monitor.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yamahaSHO* /forum/post/18977941
> 
> 
> I put up my XD screen and frame a few weeks ago and I can honestly say I would never not do an AT screen after having the center speaker behind the screen.
> 
> 
> I suppose I could have gone wall-to-wall and got all the speakers behind the screen, but this still makes my 52" TV look like a computer monitor.



Jason,


Nice Job!


Precisely how wide is the front of your room and what size screen is that?










Thanks!



...Glenn


----------



## fight4yu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/18978542
> 
> 
> Jason,
> 
> 
> Nice Job!
> 
> 
> Precisely how wide is the front of your room and what size screen is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



Judging from the size of the speaker, I will take a wide guess of about 120-130" diagonal??


----------



## yamahaSHO




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/18978542
> 
> 
> Jason,
> 
> 
> Nice Job!
> 
> 
> Precisely how wide is the front of your room and what size screen is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



The room width is only 11'4". With the layout of the basement, it's about the best I could do (if interested, you can click the link in my signature). The length is 24'x". The screen is actually the smallest SeymourAV makes at the 97.5" diagonal.


I originally wanted to do 120", but I was thinking about speaker placement and getting them out as far is I could without having to work with the frame being in the way. Last year, I bought the material from Chris so that I could make my own 100" screen. Now that the project is nearly done, I decided I have done enough of the DIY and had them build me a frame. With the material I had, that was the biggest size I could go.


I set about 12' from the screen and it really does make my 'big' TV's look small. The only time I really think my screen is small is when I go to Scott's (W00lly) house and watch a movie over there on his 14' wide screen.


----------



## oxbrown

I received a sample of the Center Stage XD and noticed that compared to the white envelope it was shipped in, the screen material has a very subtle yellow cast to it.


Are the samples exactly the same as a full role? Is the off-white color normal?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oxbrown* /forum/post/18985461
> 
> 
> I received a sample of the Center Stage XD and noticed that compared to the white envelope it was shipped in, the screen material has a very subtle yellow cast to it.
> 
> 
> Are the samples exactly the same as a full role? Is the off-white color normal?



Bleached paper is actually a bluish white and not videophile 6500K neutral. I'll either shoot the meter at an envelope to get its color temp or switch to another color so as not to have our neutral white next to what a lot of people perceive as "white." After seeing a proper calibration, a lot of folks think the image too warm, but after you get used to it, you'll become more sensitive to what 6500K white looks like and find people's Best Buy blue images annoying.


And that's our real goal: getting you where you can't stand anyone else's image quality and speaker configuration. You'll be completely intolerable.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Scamps

I'd like a AT screen, but the minimum suggested 12' distance is a problem. The first row needs to be around 10' so I was looking at the Screen Excellence 4k material. When I go to the US site for Screen Excellence I get to " Seymour Screen Excellence " is it safe to assume that name is not a coincidence?


Can I order a fixed frame screen with the 4k material from Seymour?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scamps* /forum/post/18990253
> 
> 
> I'd like a AT screen, but the minimum suggested 12' distance is a problem. The first row needs to be around 10' so I was looking at the Screen Excellence 4k material. When I go to the US site for Screen Excellence I get to " Seymour Screen Excellence " is it safe to assume that name is not a coincidence?
> 
> 
> Can I order a fixed frame screen with the 4k material from Seymour?



You should try a sample of XD and see it's ok at 12' for you or not. For some, they can see it but there are a lot viewing it at that distance (and closer) just fine.


Yes, Seymour-Screen Excellence is now an affiliate. I'll PM you the contact information for the nearest dealer.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## scottyb

We run an XD at 9' and it's rare we notice the material surface and even if we do it's only for a couple seconds and it's usually just me(I'm the video guy).


All that see out HT say the sound coming from the screen is GREAT!!


Scott


----------



## bfisherjr

agreed - we're about 10' and don't notice the weave. Performance has been outstanding - no regrets (130" fixed frame - beautiful)


----------



## SteveHorn

Scamps,

Go here and send Chris $20 for a 24" sample of XD and try it. Once Chris makes S-E EN4K samples available, get a sample of that too. A screen is a big investment decision. Best to do a lot of homework, especially if you're considering an AT screen. You have video AND audio issues to satisfy.


----------



## pgjensen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/18992271
> 
> 
> Scamps,
> 
> Go here and send Chris $20 for a 24" sample of XD and try it. Once Chris makes S-E EN4K samples available, get a sample of that too. A screen is a big investment decision. Best to do a lot of homework, especially if you're considering an AT screen. You have video AND audio issues to satisfy.



what's the difference between the two? a quick search didn't reveal too much.


i'm going to get a sample of the 24" as soon as i get my projector in (i think i'm waiting for cebit to order the panasonic 4000)


----------



## Crabalocker

Does the screen size affect moire issues with the XD material? From what I have read it seems the Epson projectors have more of an issue than other projectors.


I own the Epson 8500UB and want to build a 16:9 150" diagonal screen. The problem being, the larger the screen the less of an angled cut you can do. Is there a degree of cut I should at least maintain with the 8500UB even at 150"?


Any suggestions on the maximum size screen I should go with while using the Epson would be appreciated.


Thanks

Jason


----------



## yamahaSHO




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/18992271
> 
> 
> Scamps,
> 
> Go here and send Chris $20 for a 24" sample of XD and try it. Once Chris makes S-E EN4K samples available, get a sample of that too. A screen is a big investment decision. Best to do a lot of homework, especially if you're considering an AT screen. You have video AND audio issues to satisfy.






The good part about these screens, it's easy to replace with new material (using their frames) and could sell the old material.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker* /forum/post/18993094
> 
> 
> Does the screen size affect moire issues with the XD material? From what I have read it seems the Epson projectors have more of an issue than other projectors.
> 
> 
> I own the Epson 8500UB and want to build a 16:9 150" diagonal screen. The problem being, the larger the screen the less of an angled cut you can do. Is there a degree of cut I should at least maintain with the 8500UB even at 150"?
> 
> 
> Any suggestions on the maximum size screen I should go with while using the Epson would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jason



The need for tilting (and what fits) is reduced as you go larger. If you do as the fixed frames and most of the DIY, we'll just max the tilt and you'll be 100% projector proof at any size.


Epson projectors have only been an issue with retractables (or non-tilt DIY) with image sizes smaller than ~109" diagonal (95" wide).


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pgjensen* /forum/post/18992300
> 
> 
> what's the difference between the two? a quick search didn't reveal too much.
> 
> 
> i'm going to get a sample of the 24" as soon as i get my projector in (i think i'm waiting for cebit to order the panasonic 4000)



The Center Stage XD is a higher gain woven material that's DIY-friendly, and available internet direct in bulk, precision cut, grommeted, or in a fully manufactured fixed frame or retractable screen.


The 4K material is an ISF-certified, unity-gain woven material that has an extremely fine texture that you can sit very close to. It's not DIY-friendly and only available through your local home theater dealer or custom installer. It can be had in fixed, curved, and motorized-masking screens.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Crabalocker

Thanks Chris, My project will begin soon. Off with the 133" Cream& Sugar mix, which looks really good, and on to an AT screens! 150". My order will be in soon!


Thanks

Jason


----------



## crabra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/18991223
> 
> 
> You should try a sample of XD and see it's ok at 12' for you or not. For some, they can see it but there are a lot viewing it at that distance (and closer) just fine.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



My front row is at 11' (3.3m) and can see the weave only on certain scenes, mainly white or lighter colors where it covers most of the screen at once.

We are selling our house and the theater will stay so I am already planning my next theater. We will probably built our next house and design the house around the theater (sad I know) but will be designing it so the front row is at least 13'-14' from the XD material if I use it again.


----------



## pgjensen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *crabra* /forum/post/19001153
> 
> 
> My front row is at 11' (3.3m) and can see the weave only on certain scenes, mainly white or lighter colors where it covers most of the screen at once.
> 
> We are selling our house and the theater will stay so I am already planning my next theater. We will probably built our next house and design the house around the theater (sad I know) but will be designing it so the front row is at least 13'-14' from the XD material if I use it again.



does it make a difference if there's any outside light? or is this in a pitch black room?


my front row will be 11' from the screen, so it makes me a little worried with you saying that...


----------



## yamahaSHO

Personally, I wouldn't be too concerned. I sit at about 13', but I occasionally see how close I can get before seeing it and at 10', I would be overly concerned. IF you see it, it will be on a pure white screen, however, I don't think you'd recognize a 'weave'.


Where in Aurora, CO are you? I lived there for over 7 years.


----------



## fight4yu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pgjensen* /forum/post/19007069
> 
> 
> does it make a difference if there's any outside light? or is this in a pitch black room?
> 
> 
> my front row will be 11' from the screen, so it makes me a little worried with you saying that...



It doesn't matter for the ambient light, since you will only see the "weave" when there is a bright white area. I say 99.5% of the time, you are fine without noticing it. However, if you are really looking for it, I bet you can still see it even in some non total white scenes, although that sort of defeat the purpose of watching the movies, if you ask me. I sit at 13' away and as I said, I only "notice" it for bright white scene.


----------



## yamahaSHO




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19010448
> 
> 
> Jason,
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "the original CenterStage material"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a "newer" XD material?
> 
> 
> Are you stating that the "original CenterStage material appears relatively the same as "current SMX" and that the "current XD" is different than the "original CenterStage"
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, are you implying that the "current XD' is a tighter weave than the "current SMX"?
> 
> 
> Please clarify?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn





I don't know what the current SMX material looks like, or if they're still using the same stuff (I'd imagine not), but the "CenterStage" stuff (pictured w/ SMX) was exactly the same. If it wasn't produced at the same place, I'd be surprised. The older material had two "strands" per weave where the "XD" material has one strand, which allows smaller holes with a tigher weave.


Everything I'm typing about is just my first hand experience. The SMX material that Scott (W00lly) has was purchased a couple years ago. I'm sure SMX has upgraded since. I'd like to see a sample as I'd imagine it could be very similar.


I originally went with SeymourAV as I liked he material, but SMX wouldn't sell just the material by itself anymore. SeymourAV has been one of the absolute best vendors I have ever purchased from (shopped enough to know), so they'll continue to get my business when I'm in need.


For a comparison, here is the "CenterStage" material laying over the "CenterStage *XD*. The XD is the current offering.


BIG PICTURE ALERT!

http://hosting.superhighoutput.com/y...o/img_9946.jpg


----------



## crabra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pgjensen* /forum/post/19007069
> 
> 
> does it make a difference if there's any outside light? or is this in a pitch black room?
> 
> 
> my front row will be 11' from the screen, so it makes me a little worried with you saying that...



It's a totally black out room with a black front wall and ceiling.

As said above sometimes I look for it and can only see 1% of the time but still I would like to be at 13' back.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19010448
> 
> 
> Jason,
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "the original CenterStage material"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a "newer" XD material?
> 
> 
> Are you stating that the "original CenterStage material appears relatively the same as "current SMX" and that the "current XD" is different than the "original CenterStage"
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, are you implying that the "current XD' is a tighter weave than the "current SMX"?
> 
> 
> Please clarify?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



Hi Glenn -


The original Center Stage material was sold until June 2009. It is probably the material on the right because we did a tilted cut as standard, even with the samples. The Center Stage XD was released in June 2009 and completely replaced it because it is in every way better. It's more acoustically transparent by +0.5dB. Three times the hole density. It's brighter. It's weave is finer and you can sit closer to it without seeing the texture. It's moire-resistance was improved enough that we no longer had to do tilted cuts on the retractable screens and many DIY screens can be done without tilt, which is is a bit over-discussed in this forum with DIY applications.


There is no "newer" XD - it is the current material, and the only Seymour AV material. You may hear some discussion of 4K, but that is an affiliate company, Seymour-Screen Excellence that is available only through dealers. It'll occasionally pop up here, which is ok since we are making screens with it, but not exactly the purpose of this thread. If we develop any new material, as an engineer I know about design control, and it will be designated differently. We run a tighter ship than others that designate material iterations as "old", "original", or "new".


As to comparisons between Center Stage XD and other screens materials of whatever vintage (do they come with a "born on" or "use before" date?), I'll leave that to objective third parties not named Mark.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## yamahaSHO




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/19011763
> 
> 
> Hi Glenn -
> 
> 
> The original Center Stage material was sold until June 2009. *It is probably the material on the right* because we did a tilted cut as standard, even with the samples. The Center Stage XD was released in June 2009 and completely replaced it because it is in every way better. It's more acoustically transparent by +0.5dB. Three times the hole density. It's brighter. It's weave is finer and you can sit closer to it without seeing the texture. It's moire-resistance was improved enough that we no longer had to do tilted cuts on the retractable screens and many DIY screens can be done without tilt, which is is a bit over-discussed in this forum with DIY applications.
> 
> 
> There is no "newer" XD - it is the current material, and the only Seymour AV material. You may hear some discussion of 4K, but that is an affiliate company, Seymour-Screen Excellence that is available only through dealers. It'll occasionally pop up here, which is ok since we are making screens with it, but not exactly the purpose of this thread. If we develop any new material, as an engineer I know about design control, and it will be designated differently. We run a tighter ship than others that designate material iterations as "old", "original", or "new".
> 
> 
> As to comparisons between Center Stage XD and other screens materials of whatever vintage (do they come with a "born on" or "use before" date?), I'll leave that to objective third parties not named Mark.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Correct.










Chris, I thought I sent you a PM a few days back, but it doesn't show in my sent folder. Did you receive anything from me?


EDIT:


Here is a picture I took from behind my screen after putting it up.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yamahaSHO* /forum/post/19008326
> 
> 
> My sample of the original CenterStage material was an exact match to the SMX screen my buddy has here locally. When I get close, it's almost hard to distinguish the difference between a pixel and the weave on my XD at ~100".
> 
> 
> The XD is a much tighter and smaller weave than the above picture.



Great point that you at ~100" you can see the pixel of the image and its comparison to the apparent weave of the XD. A few things to keep in mind that push the limits of projected images include the minimum seating distance of the AT screen before its features become visible, the maximum viewing field before the pixels become visible or apparent resolution suffers, and the maximum image size before image fidelity suffers.


These experiences, and what people did to either stay within or overcome them in their applications, are very interesting.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## BIGmouthinDC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yamahaSHO* /forum/post/19008326
> 
> 
> My sample of the original CenterStage material was an exact match to the SMX screen my buddy has here locally. When I get close, it's almost hard to distinguish the difference between a pixel and the weave on my XD at ~100".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The XD is a much tighter and smaller weave than the above picture.




I just installed an SMX screen and it was a coin flip between the Seymour and the SMX. I don't think you can go wrong with either. But here is the correct current fabric comparison. I think those previous pictures were the old SMX and the Old Seymour. I have no problems with seeing the weave from my seat at 130 inches.











SMX on the left. The Seymour has the diagonal ridge. I discussed this a little here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ht=smx+seymour


----------



## yamahaSHO




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BIGmouthinDC* /forum/post/19012834
> 
> 
> I just installed an SMX screen and it was a coin flip between the Seymour and the SMX. I don't think you can go wrong with either. But here is the correct current fabric comparison. I think those previous pictures were the old SMX and the Old Seymour. I have no problems with seeing the weave from my seat at 130 inches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SMX on the left. The Seymour has the diagonal ridge. I discussed this a little here:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ht=smx+seymour



So SMX hasn't changed their material? That is EXACTLY what the original CenterStage looked like.

http://hosting.superhighoutput.com/y...o/img_9946.jpg 


CenterStage on the Left / CenterStage *XD* on the right. As you'll see in my comparison shot, the XD is flatter. (I'll have to get a better picture soon).


----------



## ExToker

OK now I have no idea what I have. I bought and received my fabric Sept '09 and assumed it was XD (as stated on the invoice).

I had no reason to think otherwise until now.

Chris states above that all stock was changed to XD in June '09.

However, if I'm reading this right, you guys are describing my fabric as the original CC.

What do I have here, CC or XD?


----------



## yamahaSHO

Can you post a better/bigger picture? From that shot, it looks like the original to me.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark P* /forum/post/19012499
> 
> 
> "misinforming"



Mark -


If you're using an Epson, or any projector in the world, either get a fixed frame screen which is 100% moire proof, or do a tilted cut DIY order which is also 100% moire proof. If your budget can swing either one, there is no discussion that's needed and we guarantee it.


If you need to squeeze the budget tighter and just do a straight piece, or are considering a smaller retractable (


----------



## ExToker

Sorry I'm having trouble with shadows today in the room.

Try this one, Thanks


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ExToker* /forum/post/19013170
> 
> 
> OK now I have no idea what I have. I bought and received my fabric Sept '09 and assumed it was XD (as stated on the invoice).
> 
> I had no reason to think otherwise until now.
> 
> Chris states above that all stock was changed to XD in June '09.
> 
> However, if I'm reading this right, you guys are describing my fabric as the original CC.
> 
> What do I have here, CC or XD?



You have the XD material since we switched everything over in 6/09. That material is from the 63" wide rolls and has the new XD 1500+ holes / sq. inch, +0.5dB acoustic improvement, and XD thread type. Spec wise it is identical to the 98", hence our single designation of the XD, but the weave pattern is one thread overlay different, due to some development reasons I won't be getting into.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## ExToker

Thanks,

So they are the same, only different










BTW Correct, it is a 63" fabric.

However, it seems kind of pointless to me to compare different manufacturers weaves, if XD alone has 2 different ones in the family that perform identically.


----------



## Jedirun

I finally got around to calibrating my projector for the larger Center Stage XD screen. I watched several scenes from Avatar and then about half of "This is It". The AT screen with JTR's behind it really makes for a movie theater like experience with what feels like a wall of sound. The higher gain of the material as opposed to my old screen really makes a difference. The picture is really amazing and I couldn't be happier with the sound. Getting the speakers in the right position has not only improved the cinema experience, music sounds better with the speakers placed for optimum sound, rather than trying to fit them around a screen.


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedirun* /forum/post/19015337
> 
> 
> i finally got around to calibrating my projector for the larger center stage xd screen. I watched several scenes from avatar and then about half of "this is it". The at screen with jtr's behind it really makes for a movie theater like experience with what feels like a wall of sound. The higher gain of the material as opposed to my old screen really makes a difference. The picture is really amazing and i couldn't be happier with the sound. Getting the speakers in the right position has not only improved the cinema experience, music sounds better with the speakers placed for optimum sound, rather than trying to fit them around a screen.



+1:d


----------



## Milt99

I'm a bit confused about the whole weave visibility topic.

I sit 11' from a my 96" diag XD screen and can only detect the weave when the projector is off and the lights are on.

My distance vision is 20/20 in one eye and 20/16 in the other.

I have never detected the weave of my screen when watching a movie.

I find it astounding that people can see holes this small at 10'.


I had the initial batch of the SMX 4500 stuff and I could at times detect that the screen material was not solid but since I had a 720 DLP I thought the trade off was worth it.


I'd like to see some ABX double blind testing on this but on 2nd thought it might be tough to do.










Does anyone know of a site where they have a calculator that measures 1080 pixel size based on screen size?


Googled a few:

96" diagonal 16:9 ratio 1920x1080

Dot pitch: 1.1069mm


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/19017037
> 
> 
> I'm a bit confused about the whole weave visibility topic.
> 
> I sit 11' from a my 96" diag XD screen and can only detect the weave when the projector is off and the lights are on.
> 
> My distance vision is 20/20 in one eye and 20/16 in the other.
> 
> I have never detected the weave of my screen when watching a movie.
> 
> I find it astounding that people can see holes this small at 10'.
> 
> 
> I had the initial batch of the SMX 4500 stuff and I could at times detect that the screen material was not solid but since I had a 720 DLP I thought the trade off was worth it.
> 
> 
> I'd like to see some ABX double blind testing on this but on 2nd thought it might be tough to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know of a site where they have a calculator that measures 1080 pixel size based on screen size?
> 
> 
> Googled a few:
> 
> 96" diagonal 16:9 ratio 1920x1080
> 
> Dot pitch: 1.1069mm



Just take the image size: 96" diagonal 16:9 is 83.7" x 47.1". Take either dimension and divide by the resolution in that direction and you'll get your pixel size. In this case, they would measure 0.044" or 1.11mm square.


With the Center Stage XD material, we'd have approximately three holes per pixel of that size.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## RMK!

Yours mirrors my expierence Jedi (including the speaker type







). Going from my Stewart Studiotek 130 screen was risky but I have been every bit as happy with the PQ and having the sound coming from the screen is a huge improvement. My front row is about 13' from the screen and that is right in the sweet spot for the XD material and my RS35 projector.













> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun* /forum/post/19015337
> 
> 
> I finally got around to calibrating my projector for the larger Center Stage XD screen. I watched several scenes from Avatar and then about half of "This is It". The AT screen with JTR's behind it really makes for a movie theater like experience with what feels like a wall of sound. The higher gain of the material as opposed to my old screen really makes a difference. The picture is really amazing and I couldn't be happier with the sound. Getting the speakers in the right position has not only improved the cinema experience, music sounds better with the speakers placed for optimum sound, rather than trying to fit them around a screen.


----------



## 18628239

Ok, considering the XD. Being new to AT I wish to be sure I understand the function of the Black Backing material (its an option). Is this to assist in what is behind the screen from appearing during bright scenes?


The screen wall in my HT is rather dark, but it isn't black (could be). I guess I could email Seymour.


----------



## RMK!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *18628239* /forum/post/19023492
> 
> 
> Ok, considering the XD. Being new to AT I wish to be sure I understand the function of the Black Backing material (its an option). Is this to assist in what is behind the screen from appearing during bright scenes?
> 
> 
> The screen wall in my HT is rather dark, but it isn't black (could be). I guess I could email Seymour.



I have my own theory on this. I believe that the black backing is to prevent the disembodied spirits of deceased actors from appearing on the screen. This whole transparency thing is really scary and unlocking secrets of parallel universes and providing a communication channel for the dead are not things to be trifled with.


Just my $.02


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RMK!* /forum/post/19024089
> 
> 
> I have my own theory on this. I believe that the black backing is to prevent the disembodied spirits of deceased actors from appearing on the screen. This whole transparency thing is really scary and unlocking secrets of parallel universes and providing a communication channel for the dead are not things to be trifled with.
> 
> 
> Just my $.02



He's kidding... I think. Yes, its to keep non-black objects (speaker cones, nameplates, etc.) from appearing through the screen during well lit scenes. You really only need it (IMO) if the area behind the screen is other than black, has a window, shiny things, etc. If you can get away with it, paint your screen wall, even beyond the screen footprint, as dark a color as you can get away with. That will make the screen and image appear to float on the screen wall. There are several threads here on AVS that have pix of HTs, and screen walls that may give you some ideas of what's possible. Also, you can get good info from Seymour's site .


----------



## Milt99

I can tell you that my speakers are invisible behind the XD material.

I was paranoid about that very thing and had my speakers built with black cabs and black drivers.

The dust caps are copper and the ribbon tweeters are silver.

Nothing is visible during viewing and damn near impossible to see from 3" with a LED Maglite.

The area behind my screen is flat black and/or covered with insulshield which is also flat black.


----------



## SteveHorn

Another thought on the black backing.... You can always add it later. Buy the screen (or XD material if your doing a DIY). If you have problems seeing through it, install the black backing. But if you're doing an AT screen, remember that the black backing is less than acoustically transparent, so you would be adding another layer of fabric for the sound to go through. Whether you hear the difference or not is another issue...


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/19027242
> 
> 
> remember that the black backing is less than acoustically transparent, so you would be adding another layer of fabric for the sound to go through.



Hi Steve -


The black backing is better than "less than acoustically transparent". It attenuates less than 1dB and most processors struggle to measure the difference.


Your second part is right on, though. It is another layer and it's relatively costly. Try paint first.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/19028410
> 
> 
> 
> Your second part is right on, though. It is another layer and it's relatively costly. Try paint first.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I was going to say the opposite. It is fairly cheap and easy to do while you are making the screen but could be a pain to try and add later if you need it.


I probably really didn't need it on mine because everything bihind the screen it covered in black muslin. The speaker cones are white but I could have left the black grills on them. Just thought it was better safe then sorry.


----------



## bfisherjr

I just wanted to post that I got a pair of the Seymour masking panels - to convert my 2:35 fixed frame to 16:9. Wow - they look great when installed. Definitely worth the money. Took me a few minutes to put in place (first time) but I'm sure will get easier as I do it more - they simply fit inside the existing frame and are held in place by the fit.


If you're considering them - do it. Much better than seeing the side bars! I'll try to get some pics posted later.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfisherjr* /forum/post/19032664
> 
> 
> I just wanted to post that I got a pair of the Seymour masking panels - to convert my 2:35 fixed frame to 16:9. Wow - they look great when installed. Definitely worth the money. Took me a few minutes to put in place (first time) but I'm sure will get easier as I do it more - they simply fit inside the existing frame and are held in place by the fit.
> 
> 
> If you're considering them - do it. Much better than seeing the side bars! I'll try to get some pics posted later.



Which flavor: AT or non-AT?


----------



## scottyb

I got the AT ones and they are great!!!!!!!!

When the movie is rolling you don't even notice they are not "black" in the AT area.

Iw ould buy them again in a heartbeat.


scott


----------



## mlbrand

Hey Chris, I hope you and your family (and house) are making it through the Iowa floods!







I've seen on the news that it's pretty bad in your area.


Mike B.


----------



## eummagic

Hi all,


Would like to get response from members who have experienced with Benq W6000 and Seymour AV AT screen combination with regard to moire effect. Iam planning a 130" diagonal (2.37:1 with anamorphic lens) in dedicated HT room.


----------



## bfisherjr

I have a similar setup - but my pj is a benq 5000 (and I too have anamorphic lens with the F130 (fixed 2.35 130" horizontal screen (141" diagonal)).


I couldn't be more happy with the Seymour screen. No moire effects at all. I've been using it more than a year now - and it still blows my mind how great the picture (and sound) is. Having the speakers mounted behind the screen is the only way to do it.


Last weekend, one of the ultimate compliments... we were watching the first Harry Potter movie as a family. My 11 year old daughter burst into tears screaming near the end when the fire and explosions happened. Her response "I thought it was real!"


Here is a link to some pictures . About a month ago I got the Seymour masking panels - definite improvement when watching 16:9 format. And very easy to insert/remove for watching widescreen movies.


And about 2 months ago I decided to install black sound absorption panels on our ceiling. Amazing the difference - it is absorbing all the reflected light off the screen as well as helping the sound. Last night wife approved adding another row of these panels to further improve everything.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eummagic* /forum/post/19079521
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Would like to get response from members who have experienced with Benq W6000 and Seymour AV AT screen combination with regard to moire effect. Iam planning a 130" diagonal (2.37:1 with anamorphic lens) in dedicated HT room.



If you are considering a fixed frame screen, or a DIY with a tilted bias to the cut, then moire is impossible with any projector.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfisherjr* /forum/post/19080677
> 
> 
> I have a similar setup - but my pj is a benq 5000 (and I too have anamorphic lens with the F130 (fixed 2.35 130" horizontal screen (141" diagonal)).
> 
> 
> I couldn't be more happy with the Seymour screen. No moire effects at all. I've been using it more than a year now - and it still blows my mind how great the picture (and sound) is. Having the speakers mounted behind the screen is the only way to do it.
> 
> 
> Last weekend, one of the ultimate compliments... we were watching the first Harry Potter movie as a family. My 11 year old daughter burst into tears screaming near the end when the fire and explosions happened. Her response "I thought it was real!"
> 
> 
> Here is a link to some pictures . About a month ago I got the Seymour masking panels - definite improvement when watching 16:9 format. And very easy to insert/remove for watching widescreen movies.
> 
> 
> And about 2 months ago I decided to install black sound absorption panels on our ceiling. Amazing the difference - it is absorbing all the reflected light off the screen as well as helping the sound. Last night wife approved adding another row of these panels to further improve everything.




bfisherjr,



I presume of course, that you are using the acoustically transparent masking panels, yes?


What type of anamorphic lens are you using and any comments?


What is your eyeball to screen distance and any comments about screen size vs seating distance with your setup!



...Glenn


----------



## maril555

can the electric retractable screen be suspended from the ceiling?

I cannot flush-mount it to the ceiling, or to the wall.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maril555* /forum/post/19082866
> 
> 
> can the electric retractable screen be suspended from the ceiling?
> 
> I cannot flush-mount it to the ceiling, or to the wall.



Without a doubt, no problem!



...Glenn


----------



## bfisherjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19082817
> 
> 
> I presume of course, that you are using the acoustically transparent masking panels, yes?



Nope, we went with the fidelo. I measured my speakers and they are located just inside where the masking panels are (the outside edge of speaker exactly lines up with the inside edge of the masking panel). Chris and I discussed it and went with the Fidelo. I've heard no discernible sound change and they look amazing. Of course I hate seeing the smaller image - but when watching 16:9 - it looks exactly like it's supposed to.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19082817
> 
> 
> What type of anamorphic lens are you using and any comments?



I went with the HTB (now Anamorphic Research). I've been very pleased with it. There is a slight softening of the image at the outside edge of the screen - but it's hardly noticeable (unless I'm calibrating). Also a very small pincushion effect (center pinches in) of about 1". I set the image to overscan that 1" on the corners so the center fits the screen perfectly, and the fidelo velvet absorbs any of the corner overscan. They have a lens to counter the astigmatism but not sure it's needed - the image is very good now.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19082817
> 
> 
> What is your eyeball to screen distance and any comments about screen size vs seating distance with your setup!



audience is 15' from seat to screen. PJ is about 18' to screen


----------



## maril555

I looked at the on-line manual, and it's unclear how to suspend it. I don't think there is a description of that option.


----------



## maril555

I'm looking to buy electr. 106" Seymour, and now thinking what aspect should I go with- 16:9, or 2.35:1?

I only watch DVD/ Blue Ray movies and play video games (PS3). I don't watch any TV, or PC there.

My current screen is fixed 16:9.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of 2.35 vs. 16:9? in my specific scenario?

Thanks.


----------



## eummagic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfisherjr* /forum/post/19080677
> 
> 
> I have a similar setup - but my pj is a benq 5000 (and I too have anamorphic lens with the F130 (fixed 2.35 130" horizontal screen (141" diagonal)).
> 
> 
> I couldn't be more happy with the Seymour screen. No moire effects at all. I've been using it more than a year now - and it still blows my mind how great the picture (and sound) is. Having the speakers mounted behind the screen is the only way to do it.
> 
> 
> Last weekend, one of the ultimate compliments... we were watching the first Harry Potter movie as a family. My 11 year old daughter burst into tears screaming near the end when the fire and explosions happened. Her response "I thought it was real!"
> 
> 
> Here is a link to some pictures . About a month ago I got the Seymour masking panels - definite improvement when watching 16:9 format. And very easy to insert/remove for watching widescreen movies.
> 
> 
> And about 2 months ago I decided to install black sound absorption panels on our ceiling. Amazing the difference - it is absorbing all the reflected light off the screen as well as helping the sound. Last night wife approved adding another row of these panels to further improve everything.



Hi,


Thanks for your feedback.... I love your setup...its amazing. BTW, what speakers have you installed behind the screen and the sub - pretty massive - which brand?


Howz the RBE in BenqW5k, Iam also worried about that part...


----------



## fight4yu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maril555* /forum/post/19084614
> 
> 
> I'm looking to buy electr. 106" Seymour, and now thinking what aspect should I go with- 16:9, or 2.35:1?
> 
> I only watch DVD/ Blue Ray movies and play video games (PS3). I don't watch any TV, or PC there.
> 
> My current screen is fixed 16:9.
> 
> What are the advantages and disadvantages of 2.35 vs. 16:9? in my specific scenario?
> 
> Thanks.



Cost-wise, 2.35:1 will be more expensive, as you need an A-lens.. and you need the PJ or the player that allow vertical stretch. However, if you primarily on blu-ray, I say 90% of film are in 2.35 ratio... so the "Cinema" effect will be much better, assuming your other 'decor' also match up with it. What I am referring to is that you probably want a dark surrounding so it also look nice that way. Other than that, you will likely need a bigger "drop" as well.

For electric, since you can't really put up masking panel in a "cheap" way, you really need to think about this before you buy. Actually, it might even be cheaper to get seperate 2.35 and 16:9 screen. I think I have seen a forum member have this dual-screen setup.


----------



## bfisherjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eummagic* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Thanks for your feedback.... I love your setup...its amazing. BTW, what speakers have you installed behind the screen and the sub - pretty massive - which brand?
> 
> 
> Howz the RBE in BenqW5k, Iam also worried about that part...



Thanks - we absolutely love it too. We have friends who paid "experts" a lot more than we paid and have no where near our setup. I still get big grins every time we watch a decent movie.


I went with Emotiva speakers - their 6.3's - exact same speaker across the front. I originally chose them because they fit in the small space behind the screen, they have a 100% money back guarantee (after I get to audition them in my own house for 30 days), and I could get exact match of 3 in the front. I was very close to purchasing Paradigms but the dealer wouldn't let me test them at home (sounded great in their theater), and didn't want to break up a set so I could have 3 identical behind the screen. The final straw was if I didn't like them, I'd only get store credit - which meant I had to pick one of their other brands which I may or may not like.


I knew I wanted Emo amps so I figured "why not, I'll try them and see what I think". Blew me away. I have been extremely happy with all my Emo gear and have retrofitted much of my house with their stuff (processors, preamps, amps, speakers...). I can't recommend them enough to anyone considering new equipment. I recommend their stuff as much as I do Seymour! (and that's saying a lot!)


Regarding the sub - it's an Elemental Design A5-350. It's a monster! I was a bit worried, it's ported and I hear all the "ported not good for music" crap. I say BS... I listen to a lot of music with it (blue, jazz, rock) and that thing is awesome. Maybe if I could do a A/B between ported and non-ported I might see a difference... but that's not easy to do with this beast








eD has been having some issues with long delivery times (mine was quick) but they are good - I have no complaints.


I also added a pair of shakers under the couch. Nice impact... combined with the sub - it's amazing.


I tried to figure out the RBE acronym... sorry, not sure what you are asking for. I've been pleased with my PJ. A couple minor nuisances (the vertical alignment seems to shift sometimes... takes 5 seconds to fix with the remote) but overall it gives a great picture, is nice and quiet, and no real issues so far. Only have about 700 hours on it so far.


----------



## eummagic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/19080989
> 
> 
> If you are considering a fixed frame screen, or a DIY with a tilted bias to the cut, then moire is impossible with any projector.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris.....Any idea about the RBE?


----------



## eummagic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfisherjr* /forum/post/19098326
> 
> 
> Thanks - we absolutely love it too. We have friends who paid "experts" a lot more than we paid and have no where near our setup. I still get big grins every time we watch a decent movie.
> 
> 
> I went with Emotiva speakers - their 6.3's - exact same speaker across the front. I originally chose them because they fit in the small space behind the screen, they have a 100% money back guarantee (after I get to audition them in my own house for 30 days), and I could get exact match of 3 in the front. I was very close to purchasing Paradigms but the dealer wouldn't let me test them at home (sounded great in their theater), and didn't want to break up a set so I could have 3 identical behind the screen. The final straw was if I didn't like them, I'd only get store credit - which meant I had to pick one of their other brands which I may or may not like.
> 
> 
> I knew I wanted Emo amps so I figured "why not, I'll try them and see what I think". Blew me away. I have been extremely happy with all my Emo gear and have retrofitted much of my house with their stuff (processors, preamps, amps, speakers...). I can't recommend them enough to anyone considering new equipment. I recommend their stuff as much as I do Seymour! (and that's saying a lot!)
> 
> 
> Regarding the sub - it's an Elemental Design A5-350. It's a monster! I was a bit worried, it's ported and I hear all the "ported not good for music" crap. I say BS... I listen to a lot of music with it (blue, jazz, rock) and that thing is awesome. Maybe if I could do a A/B between ported and non-ported I might see a difference... but that's not easy to do with this beast
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eD has been having some issues with long delivery times (mine was quick) but they are good - I have no complaints.
> 
> 
> I also added a pair of shakers under the couch. Nice impact... combined with the sub - it's amazing.
> 
> 
> I tried to figure out the RBE acronym... sorry, not sure what you are asking for. I've been pleased with my PJ. A couple minor nuisances (the vertical alignment seems to shift sometimes... takes 5 seconds to fix with the remote) but overall it gives a great picture, is nice and quiet, and no real issues so far. Only have about 700 hours on it so far.



Nice to hear that......I doubt whether I will be able to get Emotiva speakers in India - need to do research.

RBE= Rainbow Effect, noticable in DLP projectors - Link .

Have you experienced any such effect with your PJ?


----------



## bfisherjr

ahh yes, the rainbow effect. You can tell how much it bothers me since I didn't even remember the acronym










To be honest, I've never noticed the effect at our house, and nobody else watching has ever noticed it. So I think it's pretty safe to say it's a non-issue.


----------



## Jrunr

CAn anyone tell me if I would lose much, if any, picture quality to a Stewart Studiotek 130 G3 screen in a drop down screen? I will be about 14ft away and it will be in a living room, with good light control, but not complete darkness. From the research I have done online, I think the Seymour screen is the best AT screen out there. I am still not conviced that I should go AT, (I currently have speakers on stands but am considering in/on wall speakers for WAF) but if the PQ is just as good as a higher end NON AT screen then I really have nothing to lose.


Thanks in adavance.


----------



## msmCutter

Get a sample.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msmCutter* /forum/post/19109139
> 
> 
> Get a sample.



+1

Go here and send Chris $20 for a 24" square sample. Holding it up against/attaching it to your current screen will tell you a lot.

FWIW, an AT screen is the only way to fly, especially if its a scope screen.


----------



## maril555

Thank you


----------



## maril555




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/19098016
> 
> 
> Cost-wise, 2.35:1 will be more expensive, as you need an A-lens.. and you need the PJ or the player that allow vertical stretch. However, if you primarily on blu-ray, I say 90% of film are in 2.35 ratio... so the "Cinema" effect will be much better, assuming your other 'decor' also match up with it. What I am referring to is that you probably want a dark surrounding so it also look nice that way. Other than that, you will likely need a bigger "drop" as well.
> 
> For electric, since you can't really put up masking panel in a "cheap" way, you really need to think about this before you buy. Actually, it might even be cheaper to get seperate 2.35 and 16:9 screen. I think I have seen a forum member have this dual-screen setup.



Thank you.


----------



## harleysdontbitc

Anyone / Chris

I bought the XD material from you some time back. I Love the screen Clear picture and the sound!!!! I cant say enough. My Question is how to clean the screen.

I Have a 150 lbs dog and if you ever seen "Turner & Hooch" you have seen my dog.

And you also seen why I need to clean the screen, what should I use to try to clean

dog drool off my screen? I tested a piece of scrap with a hot damp cloth and I don't think that is a good idea it looks to me like it changed the color of the material.

Any ideas what I should wash it with??


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *harleysdontbitc* /forum/post/19119556
> 
> 
> Anyone / Chris
> 
> I bought the XD material from you some time back. I Love the screen Clear picture and the sound!!!! I cant say enough. My Question is how to clean the screen.
> 
> I Have a 150 lbs dog and if you ever seen "Turner & Hooch" you have seen my dog.
> 
> And you also seen why I need to clean the screen, what should I use to try to clean
> 
> dog drool off my screen? I tested a piece of scrap with a hot damp cloth and I don't think that is a good idea it looks to me like it changed the color of the material.
> 
> Any ideas what I should wash it with??



First, I'd use a vacuum brush to get the loose stuff off. Then, step it up to a damp cloth, then a mild multi-surface cleaner, and if all else fails use a kitchen/bath cleaner that has a bit of bleach content to it. You may find the discoloration you see is because you cleaned a spot and moved the schmutz around. You might find yourself needing to clean the entire screen if you have accumulated enough on it.


If you have an uncleanable stain, consider reversing the material if the backside is blemish-free. It looks barely different but specs the same.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## SteveHorn

Chris, send him a sample of XD and ask him to get Hooch to slobber all over it and send it back for analysis. This would provide a great test of the best methods that can (and those methods that shouldn't) be used.


----------



## MatthewH

Just wanted to take a moment and post a couple of pictures from my build. We have been very happy with our Seymour AV Screen.


----------



## Anthony A.












wow, what size screen you have there? 130"?


theater looks sweet!


----------



## MatthewH

Thanks, Anthony. The folks and Seymour took a 130 inch wide screen and cut it down to 125 inches wide. If you are sitting in the front row, you really feel like you are at the theater. Bathroom lines are shorter too.


----------



## Anthony A.

sweet. now you need a super high output pj though!


----------



## fraisa

That size is Awesome ...... nice job...


----------



## Crabalocker

Just wanted to say thanks Chris. Not quite done yet but my 153" xd screen looks awesome! Having you cut the material sure saved me a lot of time.


I can not believe how much the sound imaging has improved. I never noticed it before but WOW! what a difference having all three speakers behind the screen and also having a vertical center speaker. More than happy with my investment.


----------



## MatthewH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony A.* /forum/post/19151703
> 
> 
> sweet. now you need a super high output pj though!



I am happy with the Epson so far, but will probably upgrade here in a couple of years.


----------



## LucyFord




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MatthewH* /forum/post/19144446
> 
> 
> Just wanted to take a moment and post a couple of pictures from my build. We have been very happy with our Seymour AV Screen.



Hey Matt,


What sequence did you use to get that screen material nice and stretched and flat? I am struggling to get a nice flat surface! Any help is appreciated thanks.


----------



## scottyb

LucyFord,


Did you buy a screen and frame or just material?


Scott


----------



## LucyFord

Just the material.


----------



## Anthony A.

finally got my screen material stretched onto my DIY frame after 6 months of being in the box!










after about 15hrs of usage with my jvc rs35, i am very happy with the picture and sound quality. audyssey calibration really makes the speakers behind the screen perfectly balanced. count me in as a happy customer of chris.


----------



## MatthewH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LucyFord* /forum/post/19185271
> 
> 
> Hey Matt,
> 
> 
> What sequence did you use to get that screen material nice and stretched and flat? I am struggling to get a nice flat surface! Any help is appreciated thanks.



we just unrolled it and started attaching the rubber o rings. My Dad started on one side and my wife and I on the other and we met in the middle. When we were done we had a perfectly flat surface.


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MatthewH* /forum/post/19190357
> 
> 
> we just unrolled it and started attaching the rubber o rings. My Dad started on one side and my wife and I on the other and we met in the middle. When we were done we had a perfectly flat surface.



LucyFord,


Just as I suspected. He purchase a screen and frame. You just got the material. It' takes some doing.

How are you attatching it?


Scott


----------



## LucyFord




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/19190438
> 
> 
> LucyFord,
> 
> 
> Just as I suspected. He purchase a screen and frame. You just got the material. It' takes some doing.
> 
> How are you attatching it?
> 
> 
> Scott



With a staple gun. But it is not working haha tried 2 different times and end up with wrinkles through out!


----------



## scottyb

Go to your local hardware store and buy "screen spline".

It worked the best for me. Still had one small one in the corner.

We ended up getting the whole screen including frame and are really glad we did. They are one of the best bangs for the buck in HT today.


Scott


----------



## LucyFord

With the spline do I need a track on the frame of the screen? I built the frame out of wood and wrapped it in velvet.


----------



## scottyb

Yes,


But you should be able to buy the track and either screw or staple it to the back side of the frame.


Scott


----------



## MatthewH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LucyFord* /forum/post/19190620
> 
> 
> With a staple gun. But it is not working haha tried 2 different times and end up with wrinkles through out!



Sorry, didn't realize you were doing the DIY route. Good luck, I'm sure you will be happy once you get those wrinkles fixed.


----------



## jostenmeat

Hi all, my first post in this thread, as I've just started to try to plan out a screen wall using DIY XD. So, I'm going to blabber out some things, in case someone sees some holes in my ideas, or has some tip to offer.


I am considering the ballpark of a 16:9 126" screen, front row at 12' from screen wall, in a dark dedicated room (ceiling and back wall are still white, but with my very tall riser, rear wall reflections are somewhat minimized with 8' tall ceiling), using a JVC RS1. I may or may not implement a painted fade on ceiling. Everything else is very dark, and the floor in front of viewers is black. Since 126" (or even barely less) would be really pushing it with the 63", I've decided to go with the wider stuff, and then might as well implement some tilt (thinking 20 deg, I'll soon figure out how much I can implement for whatever length I choose to order), even though I very well might not need it. I hope I'm not pushing it with the lumens at this size. I did recently clean the prism for much increased brightness (AVS tip), and I changed my last bulb at 800 hours and change.


I am intending to get BB, because it would be hard to darken everything behind the screen wall (including a monstrous TH sub, somewhere between 7-9 acoustic panels, half being white, etc). However, I will just get the 63" wide BB, and staple/hang on the back side of the screen frame. I expect that the distance between the BB and XD will be very minimal, but in case that it is more than expected, there should be nothing to worry about, correct?


I wanted to order the Fidelio, but the price is a bit steep I think. I'm sure it's only like this because that's the only way to get it, but 48" wide seems to be a bit wasteful, unless you're making 8" wide borders or something. So, I'm going to see what's at Joann's, where I hope to find AT stuff as well for the rest of the screen wall.


I am not* intending to build the screen wall into any boundary, but simply to have it free standing. I intend to move it as rarely as possible (hopefully never), but perhaps the main reason is so that I can access my Danley sub if I ever need to. A door, or anything like that, is simply going to be impossible so far as I can tell, especially with the screen size I will go with, and to remove the sub would require a ridiculously great distance between front and screen walls. It looks* like I will use Douglas for this "screen wall". (Is screen wall the proper term?)


The only other option in order to leave the screen wall alone (and/or support by boundaries), is to leave the sub where it is now: at the back wall. My friend did mention even as a free standing screen wall, we can use a couple of (removable) screws to help secure it to the ceiling. Anyways, am I smoking too much funny stuff?


I've read close to half this thread now, ok if that, and I ran across the video where the kid is jumping up and down on the grommetted fabric, I believe it was. This does relieve me somewhat, because I was wondering just how tightly I can pull the fabric to affix, without worry of pulling the weaves apart.


Final design of my screen wall will be dependent on what I can find for a new vertically oriented center tower speaker. I am currently on the hunt for a PSB T55 ideally, or possibly T45. I've been trying to contact my local dealer, hoping he can split a pair.


I intend to use the more advanced PDF instructions for the screen frame, with the advice and help from a friend (who knows nothing about AV, but is a professional with wood). He doesn't think that the biscuits are necessary. I intend to use maple for this. I am sure questions/concerns will be to follow in the next month or two. Thank you very much for reading.


----------



## msmCutter

Why even build a wall? Why not build something more like an old school moveable chalk board? Or something like a really big cart door men use to carry hanging things from your car to your hotel room? You could even build a base (or something on the walls) to lock it in position when you're not moving it. You could also use metal instead of wood.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msmCutter* /forum/post/19196017
> 
> 
> Why even build a wall? Why not build something more like an old school moveable chalk board?



Thanks for your feedback. The reasons for the wall include the following: light control, immersion, and aesthetics. I am going to dedicate between 7 and 9 of my acoustic panels just for the front wall, namely for corner trapping and SBIR. 5 for absolutely sure are white (but rest are black). Without a "wall", both the corners and the LR speakers with traps directly behind them will all be plainly visible. I believe in having significant spread with my speakers, you know, closer to an equilateral triangle as possible, more or less, and that's just from the front row. My subwoofer is made of a bright baltic birch, and is about 5' tall and 4' wide. This would also be likely visible to significant extent. I plan on having it's 16" mouth as unobstructed as possible, below any framing, or screen.


Then it's just nice to hide 3 speakers, a monster sub, and 9 acoustic panels. Stealth! I'd like as much of the front to be black as possible.


The movable chalkboard is an interesting idea. With what I guess the final weight would be, perhaps it would be stable enough . . . ? Though having wheels plainly viewable is not exactly my idea of sexy, but maybe there's a way to effectively hide them . . . and of course that's extra cost too . . .



> Quote:
> Or something like a really big cart door men use to carry hanging things from your car to your hotel room? You could even build a base (or something on the walls) to lock it in position when you're not moving it. You could also use metal instead of wood.



I know the big cart idea is related to the chalkboard idea, but I'm pretty sure I'm not picturing what you are intending.


The base is an interesting idea, and I will bounce that one off my friend.


I've gone over the topic of metal at another forum. For one guy named "basspig", it was to be avoided at all costs due to resonances (but he goes BIG if you know what I mean). However, other very knowledgeable folks say that as long as the gauge is big enough, it should be fine. I have become convinced that if I/we can design and execute wood well enough, that we should be fine, and finally I have the perception that metal would be more difficult to work for us. It's still not out of the question, but it is highly likely that we are going with wood. Cheers.


----------



## Crabalocker




> Quote:
> The reasons for the wall include the following: light control, immersion, and aesthetics. I am going to dedicate between 7 and 9 of my acoustic panels just for the front wall, namely for corner trapping and SBIR. 5 for absolutely sure are white (but rest are black). Without a "wall"



I would suggest the wall.


I built a false wall and framed it like a giant window. My screen frame is made of 2x4's and inserted into the window frame. I used basic 2x4 construction with 2-2"x8"x12' as my header.I left a quarter inch to half inch gap on the top (into the header) and one side. I use lag screws and lag bolts to tighten the screen as required (screen sag).


Instead of sheet rock I just wrapped my wall with fabric (only 16" on either side of the screen). For the screen bezel I used regular baseboard wrapped in black velvet held in place with Velcro. The area behind my screen is not quite 3 feet wide. Screen access is from the side, I used the fabric again held to the back wall with Velcro. Total light control behind the screen. I'll take some photo's and post them so you can see because I don't explain very well. turned out really nice (better than I thought it would, except the access area. I could have done better, oh well) and wasn't very hard to build, just need to find my camera charger.


the_real_crab-


----------



## jostenmeat

Thanks crab! I look forward to the pics, and I will reread your post again in the future for sure. Much appreciated.


----------



## Jedirun

Jostenmeat,


Good to see you posting, and thanks again for all your advice about my theater a year ago.


If you do become interested in metal for the sole reason that it is unlikely to change its shape with moderate changes in heat or humidity, you could go with structural extruded aluminum. Once the initial cuts are made you just fasten it together with prefabricated connectors. I went with 80/20 brand stuff and after a lot of trial and error ended up going with grommets and o-rings to fasten it to the frame. For your size, you would need heavier gauge materiaal than I am using, because even at about 115" there is slight bowing of the aluminum once the screen is stretched in place.


Here are some pictures of what I did to avoid a fixed screen wall since I am renting for another 9 months. It is far from sexy, but it may give you an idea or two.


By the way, I love the screen material and love having my speakers behind the screen.















































I am going to add some black backing because when there are very dark scenes with bright areas I get some reflections, but other than that, I could not be happier with the state of my theater.


Chris was extremely helpful with advice about the screen material and my DIY project.


----------



## Crabalocker

I am not quite done yet, maybe 80%. I still have my clean up and some finishing work to do. I know the bezel edge is not very level, but I'll fix that later (Velcro makes it easy but it's still a pain to remove).


The screen is 153" diagonal with an Epson 8500UB and the sitting area is 15' back. The screen picture looks really good, maybe a little green push, I'll have to recalibrate the projector later. The other area to the side has a 55" Samsung 3d TV. So far I am really happy with how it's turning out. The screen material cost around $380 (shipping included) with the total cost of the wall and screen being around $700. It's not a so called dedicated theater room but more of a family room, or as one of my friends put it ...... "it's a multi-plex"


Please don't laugh at my little Polk speakers, they look small but do sound pretty good. I was really surprised how big they sounded for a little speaker, they are only a band-aid solution till I upgrade next year. You can see I built my own speaker stand so I could turn my center channel speaker vertical.


I know it looks bad but I didn't have a choice, I had to run the HDMI cable across the roof, it doesn't look great but had to do what I had to do.


Wanted to show more of the construction but would only let me upload 5 pics. You can see black velvet tape covering my lag bolts in the picture 'behind the screen shot' up the side of the inside of the screen frame. I use the lag bolts to tension the screen if needed later. I used lag screws for the top of the frame so I could tension in the vertical direction as well, I used 8 or 9 lag screws for the top.


Again I'm not happy with the access area, it's behind where the audio equipment is.


I had to use our crappy old digital camera, I still can't find my other charger. The pictures don't really do it justice, it looks a lot better in person.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958


----------



## msmCutter

For my style ideas, wheels are optional. Just make sure you don't bolt it down and then you have the option to slide it out of the way. When I think of wall I think of a structure that isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Taxi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun* /forum/post/19197949



Hi Jedirun,


What software did you use to do your design?


Thanks!


----------



## bodhisafa

Taxi


I believe Jedirun used google sketchup


----------



## jostenmeat

Thanks guys!! You guys are the best.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun* /forum/post/19197949
> 
> 
> Jostenmeat,
> 
> 
> Good to see you posting, and thanks again for all your advice about my theater a year ago.
> 
> 
> If you do become interested in metal for the sole reason that it is unlikely to change its shape with moderate changes in heat or humidity, you could go with structural extruded aluminum. Once the initial cuts are made you just fasten it together with prefabricated connectors. I went with 80/20 brand stuff and after a lot of trial and error ended up going with grommets and o-rings to fasten it to the frame. For your size, you would need heavier gauge materiaal than I am using, because even at about 115" there is slight bowing of the aluminum once the screen is stretched in place.
> 
> 
> Here are some pictures of what I did to avoid a fixed screen wall since I am renting for another 9 months. It is far from sexy, but it may give you an idea or two.
> 
> 
> By the way, I love the screen material and love having my speakers behind the screen.
> 
> 
> I am going to add some black backing because when there are very dark scenes with bright areas I get some reflections, but other than that, I could not be happier with the state of my theater.
> 
> 
> Chris was extremely helpful with advice about the screen material and my DIY project.



It's nice to see your system again, and see how far it's come along too.







I'm sure you might remember, but the second set of PDF instructions calls for maple + metal splining (if that's what you call it), and that's the plan as of now. I just hope I don't pull apart the weaves when trying to make sure that it is perfectly taut.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker* /forum/post/19198094
> 
> 
> I am not quite done yet, maybe 80%. I still have my clean up and some finishing work to do. I know the bezel edge is not very level, but I'll fix that later (Velcro makes it easy but it's still a pain to remove).
> 
> 
> The screen is 153" diagonal with an Epson 8500UB and the sitting area is 15' back. The screen picture looks really good, maybe a little green push, I'll have to recalibrate the projector later. The other area to the side has a 55" Samsung 3d TV. So far I am really happy with how it's turning out. The screen material cost around $380 (shipping included) with the total cost of the wall and screen being around $700. It's not a so called dedicated theater room but more of a family room, or as one of my friends put it ...... "it's a multi-plex"
> 
> 
> Please don't laugh at my little Polk speakers, they look small but do sound pretty good. I was really surprised how big they sounded for a little speaker, they are only a band-aid solution till I upgrade next year. You can see I built my own speaker stand so I could turn my center channel speaker vertical.
> 
> 
> I know it looks bad but I didn't have a choice, I had to run the HDMI cable across the roof, it doesn't look great but had to do what I had to do.
> 
> 
> Wanted to show more of the construction but would only let me upload 5 pics. You can see black velvet tape covering my lag bolts in the picture 'behind the screen shot' up the side of the inside of the screen frame. I use the lag bolts to tension the screen if needed later. I used lag screws for the top of the frame so I could tension in the vertical direction as well, I used 8 or 9 lag screws for the top.
> 
> 
> Again I'm not happy with the access area, it's behind where the audio equipment is.
> 
> 
> I had to use our crappy old digital camera, I still can't find my other charger. The pictures don't really do it justice, it looks a lot better in person.



Considering what the functionality of the room is like, I think you are too self-effacing! I think it looks great! BTW, if you ever want to post more pics, you can use something like Photobucket or other. I don't know what models of Polk speakers you have, but when you rotate a speaker 90 degrees, one of the things you have to see is if there is some sort of directional waveguide/lens/diffuser. If it's just a bare tweeter with nothing surrounding it, then you're fine. I'll give you a couple of examples where you would want to simply use a screwdriver and rotate it. Otherwise, yeah, it will be nice to have speakers that are commensurate with your screen next year.







Do you find that you are leaning towards some black backing? It seems a bit translucent as is?


----------



## msmCutter

The direction of the waveguide/diffusior matters?


----------



## Crabalocker




> Quote:
> Do you find that you are leaning towards some black backing? It seems a bit translucent as is?



That's because I have rack lighting behind so you can see through the screen, kinda like when you go into the I-max, except I Have the rm 85's. The cloth I used was a black out type material, it is totally black when I turn the rack lighting out.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284672327 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284672327


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bodhisafa* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Taxi
> 
> 
> I believe Jedirun used google sketchup



That is correct.


----------



## jostenmeat

msm, yes the orientation matters.


crab, ah I see! nevermind.


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see your system again, and see how far it's come along too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you might remember, but the second set of PDF instructions calls for maple + metal splining (if that's what you call it), and that's the plan as of now. I just hope I don't pull apart the weaves when trying to make sure that it is perfectly taut.



I really put the material through a lot trying to get it tight with Velcro. I do not think you can hurt it.


I even got the material all wrinkled getting the grommets in, but the wrinkles came right out when the material was stretched.


----------



## Taxi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun* /forum/post/19202200
> 
> 
> That is correct.



Bummer. I've tried that before and I can't seem to get the hang of it. I was hoping for something a little more user friendly. I guess I'll have to give it another look.


Thanks!


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Taxi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bummer. I've tried that before and I can't seem to get the hang of it. I was hoping for something a little more user friendly. I guess I'll have to give it another look.
> 
> 
> Thanks!



I had a lot of trouble with sketchup at first, but the more I play with it the better it gets.


I did get some help with it. My brother in law is an architect, and showed me some things that really helped out.


----------



## WilliamG

If you guys are interested, I just became Chris Seymour's very first retractable-4K-material customer from his new joint venture with Screen Excellence!


Feel free to read about my experience here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...8&postcount=97


----------



## fight4yu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker* /forum/post/19198094
> 
> 
> I am not quite done yet, maybe 80%. I still have my clean up and some finishing work to do. I know the bezel edge is not very level, but I'll fix that later (Velcro makes it easy but it's still a pain to remove).
> 
> 
> The screen is 153" diagonal with an Epson 8500UB and the sitting area is 15' back. The screen picture looks really good, maybe a little green push, I'll have to recalibrate the projector later. The other area to the side has a 55" Samsung 3d TV. So far I am really happy with how it's turning out. The screen material cost around $380 (shipping included) with the total cost of the wall and screen being around $700. It's not a so called dedicated theater room but more of a family room, or as one of my friends put it ...... "it's a multi-plex"
> 
> 
> Please don't laugh at my little Polk speakers, they look small but do sound pretty good. I was really surprised how big they sounded for a little speaker, they are only a band-aid solution till I upgrade next year. You can see I built my own speaker stand so I could turn my center channel speaker vertical.
> 
> 
> I know it looks bad but I didn't have a choice, I had to run the HDMI cable across the roof, it doesn't look great but had to do what I had to do.
> 
> 
> Wanted to show more of the construction but would only let me upload 5 pics. You can see black velvet tape covering my lag bolts in the picture 'behind the screen shot' up the side of the inside of the screen frame. I use the lag bolts to tension the screen if needed later. I used lag screws for the top of the frame so I could tension in the vertical direction as well, I used 8 or 9 lag screws for the top.
> 
> 
> Again I'm not happy with the access area, it's behind where the audio equipment is.
> 
> 
> I had to use our crappy old digital camera, I still can't find my other charger. The pictures don't really do it justice, it looks a lot better in person.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958



I like your setup! It looks really good! If I can get my wife to approve the big white screen on the wall, I will be a happy man










BTW, for 153" and Epson 8500UB and 15ft back, will the brightness be enough? Their THX mode is only about 500lumens, so that's only about 7-8fL?


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/19256946
> 
> 
> I like your setup! It looks really good! If I can get my wife to approve the big white screen on the wall, I will be a happy man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, for 153" and Epson 8500UB and 15ft back, will the brightness be enough? Their THX mode is only about 500lumens, so that's only about 7-8fL?



It would probably be enough if your lighting is VERY controlled. At 153" diagonal at 15ft, I'd be more worried about having a seizure!


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/19256946
> 
> 
> I like your setup! It looks really good! If I can get my wife to approve the big white screen on the wall, I will be a happy man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, for 153" and Epson 8500UB and 15ft back, will the brightness be enough? Their THX mode is only about 500lumens, so that's only about 7-8fL?



I run a 153" (@16:9) with a Panny 4000, less bright then the Epson I believe. I have been running in Eco mode and Color1 (their THX mode), have been very happy with the brightness. Totaly light controlled.


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/19257111
> 
> 
> I run a 153" (@16:9) with a Panny 4000, less bright then the Epson I believe. I have been running in Eco mode and Color1 (their THX mode), have been very happy with the brightness. Totaly light controlled.



Yes, the Panny is less bright than the Epson (I had both in my house), so yep he should be fine!


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/19257111
> 
> 
> I run a 153" (@16:9) with a Panny 4000, less bright then the Epson I believe. I have been running in Eco mode and Color1 (their THX mode), have been very happy with the brightness. Totaly light controlled.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WilliamG* /forum/post/19257115
> 
> 
> Yes, the Panny is less bright than the Epson (I had both in my house), so yep he should be fine!



Wow, ok, maybe I'm fine with a 1.78 126" with my RS1 after all. I've been wondering if I would be pushing the lumens. I have good light control, and I plan on having very good light control once I get started with the project.


----------



## fight4yu

Yeah.. I think REALLY good light control and dark wall is a must. I have a 11-12fL in what I called a so-so room and it is OK with me, but I definitely will not want to go down to 7-8fL... maybe your eyes will get adjusted to it, but you might also lose some pop factor.


----------



## damonbrodie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, ok, maybe I'm fine with a 1.78 126" with my RS1 after all. I've been wondering if I would be pushing the lumens. I have good light control, and I plan on having very good light control once I get started with the project.



I'm looking at a 125" 2.35:1 seymour screen with the pt4000. Seating is at about 12ft. From what folks are saying here I should be fine I guess


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/19258510
> 
> 
> Yeah.. I think REALLY good light control and dark wall is a must. I have a 11-12fL in what I called a so-so room and it is OK with me, but I definitely will not want to go down to 7-8fL... maybe your eyes will get adjusted to it, but you might also lose some pop factor.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *damonbrodie* /forum/post/19259016
> 
> 
> I'm looking at a 125" 2.35:1 seymour screen with the pt4000. Seating is at about 12ft. From what folks are saying here I should be fine I guess



Thanks guys. I went to do the basic calculation again (I don't have any measuring equipment for video). If a new bulb is expected to be at 650 lumens for me, in cinema, low lamp, then I should hit 13.8 FL. (By the same method, I am currently getting a tad over 17 FL). I have black carpet in front of viewers, dark burgundy curtains, the false wall is to be all black, and I plan to finally paint a long black fade on ceiling. I guess I should be ok.


If you guys haven't tried the prism cleaning thing that I learned from the AVS thread, you guys have got to try it. I used 99% isopropyl, microfiber, and the rubber end of a pencil to reach. The difference was like putting in a brand new bulb, and I probably did it at the 200-300 hr mark of my second bulb. Cleaning the lamp assembly didn't do much (going my how much relative gunk came off of each). BTW, when just looking at the prism, I thought gee doesn't look dirty at all . . . but then when I did it, I was surprised how much came off. The whole process is 5 minutes. Cheers.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/19259410
> 
> 
> Thanks guys. I went to do the basic calculation again (I don't have any measuring equipment for video). If a new bulb is expected to be at 650 lumens for me, in cinema, low lamp, then I should hit 13.8 FL. (By the same method, I am currently getting a tad over 17 FL). I have black carpet in front of viewers, dark burgundy curtains, the false wall is to be all black, and I plan to finally paint a long black fade on ceiling. I guess I should be ok.
> 
> 
> If you guys haven't tried the prism cleaning thing that I learned from the AVS thread, you guys have got to try it. I used 99% isopropyl, microfiber, and the rubber end of a pencil to reach. The difference was like putting in a brand new bulb, and I probably did it at the 200-300 hr mark of my second bulb. Cleaning the lamp assembly didn't do much (going my how much relative gunk came off of each). BTW, when just looking at the prism, I thought gee doesn't look dirty at all . . . but then when I did it, I was surprised how much came off. The whole process is 5 minutes. Cheers.



By prism I asume you are talking animorphic lense. If that is the case I don't have one in the way to clean


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/19259463
> 
> 
> By prism I asume you are talking animorphic lense. If that is the case I don't have one in the way to clean



No. Maybe it's called a diffuser instead?


Lemme find the thread . . . .


I don't specifically remember Pana owners chiming in, but I do remember Epson owners did. Many AVSers were posting their increase lumens to boot . . .


I think it's around pg5 where you might want to start? can't recall.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1223098&page=5


----------



## Crabalocker




> Quote:
> I like your setup! It looks really good! If I can get my wife to approve the big white screen on the wall, I will be a happy man
> 
> 
> BTW, for 153" and Epson 8500UB and 15ft back, will the brightness be enough? Their THX mode is only about 500lumens, so that's only about 7-8fL?



Thanks, I still have to level the screen and some finishing work but I am happy with the results so far. I'll take some better photos when I'm done.


I used the calculator pro from projector central and if the xd material has a gain of 1.2 at 153" the calculator says it would be 14 fl. I find it plenty bright, even if the actual fl is less. Even during the day when there is ambient light I use the dynamic mode and it still looks good. I use the theater1 setting, I like the picture better than the thx setting.


the_real_crab-


----------



## Crabalocker

Is my thinking or calculations wrong? That's why I only went 153" to get the biggest picture while keeping enough fl. I would of went as big as 180" if I could.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker* /forum/post/19260078
> 
> 
> Is my thinking or calculations wrong? That's why I only went 153" to get the biggest picture while keeping enough fl. I would of went as big as 180" if I could.



The best thing you can do is to darken/blacken your room as much as possible. If it's a cave you can get by with lower FtL and still have a dynamic image. However, I wouldn't go beyond 45 degree wide viewing field unless you know from experience that you like a head-turning, 24 frames per second flying across the room image. Immersion is great, but keep image fidelity, apparent resolution, and motion smoothness in mind.


The only projectors that can adequately light up low-gain white 180" monster screens are the genuine light cannons or semi-commercial ones.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Crabalocker




> Quote:
> The best thing you can do is to darken/blacken your room as much as possible. If it's a cave you can get by with lower FtL and still have a dynamic image



I think you misunderstood, I would go to 180" if I could but I think I'm at my limit, 153" is just about it for my lighting situation. I'm really happy with what my picture looks like, just a slight green push, I still have to recalibrate my projector. I was just using the calculator from projector central to see how big I could go with my projector. The calculator said at 153" 14fl would be the result. If the output is only 7fl, thank god for that because with the size of my screen now, bright scenes are kinda' blinding, I could not imagine how bright it would be if it were really 14fl (twice the brightness?). When I'm watching TV or a blu-ray it looks awesome, brightness is just about perfect I'm really happy with how it looks, and by the way Chris, your company is excellent! I've told everyone I know about projectors and about Seymour AV, I'm so glad I found out about them. Projectors are so much better than I ever thought they could be, the people I work with can't fathom the picture quality comparing to a regular LCD, LED or Plasma, they're still skeptical......the fools! Their loss. I can't believe how small my 55" 3D TV looks. My only regret was not finding out about projectors earlier!


the_real_crab-


----------



## fight4yu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker* /forum/post/19260078
> 
> 
> Is my thinking or calculations wrong? That's why I only went 153" to get the biggest picture while keeping enough fl. I would of went as big as 180" if I could.



First, let's assume you are targeting for 14fL..


14fL for your screen will require PJ to put out 14x69 = 966 lumens. AV screen might be in the range of 0.9-1.1, but I do not think you can "assume" it is 1.2. Chris can comment more on this, but I think it is probably safer to assume it is 1.0 than 1.2...

Even if I assume 1.2 gain, you need 800 lumens. This is achievable for 8500UB in the brightest mode easily, but definitely NOT in the BEST mode (THX or calibrated one). I also checked projectorcentral, and I just do not know how they can get this 12-14fL numbers. In a "medium zoom" position, they have only 7fL. So, they are assuming a max zoom will get you 70% more lumens! I just do not believe it, and maybe you can ask the 8500UB forum and get their opinion. In projectorreviews by Art, the increase is only about 30%.


To sum up, with new bulb, you might get 9-10fL. And with an aging bulb, you will get less. Now, this could all be OK if you have a darkroom. However, if you are looking for a 12-14fL, you better double check with the 8500UB forum.

Good luck!


----------



## fight4yu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker* /forum/post/19260526
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstood, I would go to 180" if I could but I think I'm at my limit, 153" is just about it for my lighting situation. I'm really happy with what my picture looks like, just a slight green push, I still have to recalibrate my projector. I was just using the calculator from projector central to see how big I could go with my projector. The calculator said at 153" 14fl would be the result. If the output is only 7fl, thank god for that because with the size of my screen now, bright scenes are kinda' blinding, I could not imagine how bright it would be if it were really 14fl (twice the brightness?). When I'm watching TV or a blu-ray it looks awesome, brightness is just about perfect I'm really happy with how it looks, and by the way Chris, your company is excellent! I've told everyone I know about projectors and about Seymour AV, I'm so glad I found out about them. Projectors are so much better than I ever thought they could be, the people I work with can't fathom the picture quality comparing to a regular LCD, LED or Plasma, they're still skeptical......the fools! Their loss. I can't believe how small my 55" 3D TV looks. My only regret was not finding out about projectors earlier!
> 
> 
> the_real_crab-



Good to hear that you like your PJ and works in your environment! That's what it matters!

BTW, what mode are you running?


----------



## Crabalocker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by damonbrodie View Post
> 
> I'm looking at a 125" 2.35:1 seymour screen with the pt4000. Seating is at about 12ft. From what folks are saying here I should be fine I guess



Bigger is better, I went from 133" to 153". My screen is 16:9 so I think you could easily go 140" at 2:35:1. Just my opinion though.


the_real_crab-


----------



## fight4yu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker* /forum/post/19260561
> 
> 
> Bigger is better, I went from 133" to 153". My screen is 16:9 so I think you could easily go 140" at 2:35:1. Just my opinion though.
> 
> 
> the_real_crab-



Not to say bigger is better is wrong, but there are many factors to consider as well. For one, the field of vision... That maybe a personal taste, but i really hate to have my head "panning" to catch content on a movie.

Second, is the lumen question. If you don't care about grayscale and color accuracy, then this might not be as important. However, most "D65 calibrated" mode will cut your lumen very quickly... and the fact that at a higher contrast (brighter) image, the color will tend to run out and so your grayscale might not be D65 anymore... and then there is bulb aging.. as bulb age, your image will DIM and if you already are at the edge, then your image will not look as good. We don't normally "notice" it because we get accustomed to it as bulb ages bit by bit... I have a friend that told me his epson1080 is plenty bright even after 3000hrs.. I cannot believe what he said, and until he replaced his bulb, he only realized how much brighter and better it used to be...

I understand we all want a BIG screen, but to me, getting a bright and calibrated picture is as important a factor to consider.


----------



## Crabalocker




> Quote:
> AV screen might be in the range of 0.9-1.1, but I do not think you can "assume" it is 1.2



I just went by what Seymour AV advertises, they say the xd material gain is 1.2? any way, I"m at full zoom with the projector being 15' from the screen. I like the look of theater1 as apposed to the thx mode, again I'm really happy with the look and quality of the picture. There are so many options with calibrating, it will take me a while to get the perfect colour balance, still have a slight green push.


Jason


----------



## Crabalocker

fight4yu, point taken. I don't want to mislead people into doing something they might regret. If I do or did, I apologize, I'm new to this whole projector thing and don't mean to speak out of line. The knowledge some of you guys have is unbelievable and has really helped me these last few months...THANKS and I mean that with all my heart. If it wasn't for the testers and the one's that really know about this stuff, I would have been really lost, sorry for being out of line.


The one's who created the cream&sugar mix and the one's who continue to test and help the not so smart like myself....THANKS I really do appreciate the time and effort put forth by you guys. My dream projector would be the Sim2. Here's to praying for a lottery win!


Jason


----------



## pgjensen

does anyone in Denver, CO or the surrounding area have an XD screen I could take a look at? that would be awesome










Paul


----------



## yamahaSHO




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pgjensen* /forum/post/19292817
> 
> 
> does anyone in Denver, CO or the surrounding area have an XD screen I could take a look at? that would be awesome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul



Haha, I used to live in Aurora, CO two years ago. I do believe there is someone in your area that has and XD screen. I'll do some searching to see if I can find the thread.


----------



## davidtt485

So I emailed Chris last night at a pretty late hour inquiring about his product the center stage xd material. He replied back very promptly with advice and some measurement info. The info i gave him the fist time was a little wrong, so i re-mailed him with the right info and questions about audio respsonse... he again replied back very promptly and had a google checkout all ready to go... Awesome Customer Service, i couldn't be happier even if the screen doesnt perform upto the expectations you guys have set in this thread. I will respond back here with pictures and a review once it arrives and is framed.


----------



## Crabalocker

davidtt485,

I think you'll be happy with the product, I know I am. I had an obvious green push but have since fixed it. The colour is still not perfect but I am really close now.


I am looking forward to your review, how big is your screen and type of projector?


----------



## davidtt485

The Screen will be 16:9 110" or so and the Projector is an Optoma HD65...The wife Says what ever i install in this house stays with the house when we sell it, so i did not want the 4k screen or a nice(r) projector...


----------



## jostenmeat

Dumb question. Can I toe-in my main speakers considerably, when firing through utility speaker cloth that I bought from JoAnn's?


I believe I have now read every post belonging to Chris regarding comb filtering through the XD material, and that we should feel free to angle as we want towards the goal of superior audio. I am hoping/assuming that since generic black speaker cloth doesn't even have to consider visual opacity to begin with, that I should be fine in this regard, but then again I've made more bad assumptions than I care to admit. Thank you. Only my center speaker will be behind the screen (using the aforementioned cloth as the BB), with zero degree of incidence.


----------



## chriscmore

With the exception of the most coarse heavy woven fabrics, you should be fine with any decently acoustically transparent woven material firing through it at whatever angle you want to.


(Micro)Perfed vinyl is a different story, since their acoustical transparency is worse and back reflections/angles are a problem.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## pgjensen

So i setup my screen last night finally. One thing I've noticed, though, is at a certain angle I can see the projector reflection on the screen. The projector is mounted at the top of the screen. I'm a little worried. Is this because my ceiling is currently white and it's reflecting from the ceiling to the screen? Or is this a known issue and an actual reflection off of the screen itself?


----------



## Doug G

What's behind the screen? I have a similar issue from certain seating positions, been meaning to fix it but since it doesn't affect mine I guess I've gotten a bit lax about it. In my case I have two glass door cabinets on either side of the screen and when sitting at just the right angle, the "glow" from the lens reflects off the glass and back thru the screen. I've been meaning to rectify this by blacking them out somehow. We actually just got a new sofa which sits a good 6-8" higher than the last one so now I wonder if this is still an issue, since I recall it going away if I raised myself up a foot or so (the reflection was coming from the very top part of the glass as my PJ is also mounted up near the ceiling.)


----------



## pgjensen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Doug G* /forum/post/19454401
> 
> 
> What's behind the screen? I have a similar issue from certain seating positions, been meaning to fix it but since it doesn't affect mine I guess I've gotten a bit lax about it. In my case I have two glass door cabinets on either side of the screen and when sitting at just the right angle, the "glow" from the lens reflects off the glass and back thru the screen. I've been meaning to rectify this by blacking them out somehow. We actually just got a new sofa which sits a good 6-8" higher than the last one so now I wonder if this is still an issue, since I recall it going away if I raised myself up a foot or so (the reflection was coming from the very top part of the glass as my PJ is also mounted up near the ceiling.)



I bet that's it! I have my receiver/htpc behind it and haven't yet put a curtain over them. they both have some "glass" on them. what a relief!


----------



## jostenmeat

Quote:

Originally Posted by *chriscmore* 
With the exception of the most coarse heavy woven fabrics, you should be fine with any decently acoustically transparent woven material firing through it at whatever angle you want to.


(Micro)Perfed vinyl is a different story, since their acoustical transparency is worse and back reflections/angles are a problem.


Cheers,

Chris
Thank you for the input, Chris!

Quote:

Originally Posted by *pgjensen* 
So i setup my screen last night finally. One thing I've noticed, though, is at a certain angle I can see the projector reflection on the screen. The projector is mounted at the top of the screen. I'm a little worried. Is this because my ceiling is currently white and it's reflecting from the ceiling to the screen? Or is this a known issue and an actual reflection off of the screen itself?
I don't quite understand. I mean if I take this literally, your PJ is located just above your screen? (It's not a rear projection setup right?)


Or wait, your receiver/htpc is directly hidden behind the screen? I would use black backing for sure. Also, you might consider blacking out displays with tape if you don't need to see what's on them, or you can use window tint cut out to dim the displays (of course after setting displays to dimmest mode). In my experiences, double layers of tint simply won't stick. I use both tint and tape on my rack, which is located at the back wall, facing forward. My Crown XTi amp has a display and power-on light that are just ridiculously bright, for instance. I do hope to get a "real" rack in the near future, perhaps a Middle Atlantic or something else, which may have a door . . .


One warning about using tint is that it will block IR commands. So, careful not to cover the IR receiver on any given component.


----------



## pgjensen

Quote:

Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* 
Thank you for the input, Chris!




I don't quite understand. I mean if I take this literally, your PJ is located just above your screen? (It's not a rear projection setup right?)


Or wait, your receiver/htpc is directly hidden behind the screen? I would use black backing for sure. Also, you might consider blacking out displays with tape if you don't need to see what's on them, or you can use window tint cut out to dim the displays (of course after setting displays to dimmest mode). In my experiences, double layers of tint simply won't stick. I use both tint and tape on my rack, which is located at the back wall, facing forward. My Crown XTi amp has a display and power-on light that are just ridiculously bright, for instance. I do hope to get a "real" rack in the near future, perhaps a Middle Atlantic or something else, which may have a door . . .


One warning about using tint is that it will block IR commands. So, careful not to cover the IR receiver on any given component.


projector is front projection and about 12' from screen mounted in ceiling (built a box)


components are all behind the screen in a "closet" area uncovered and glaring!


going to just cover components with a curtain behind that will take care of all of this. i just set it up and haven't had time to work on that.


i'll use an ir extender and put that in a hole below the screen through the drywall or something.


----------



## lebloganthrope

Chriscmore,


Did you have the opportunity to test your screens with one of the new 3D projectors (JVC, Sony, Mitsubishi...)? they are not plenty of light out of them and it will be pity to use high gain instead of AT screens.


----------



## fight4yu

Chris,


Also, have you had any thoughts about a gray-screen high-contrast material?


----------



## msmCutter

How do you order the DIY material with grommets already installed? I don't see it as an option in the store.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msmCutter* /forum/post/19459620
> 
> 
> How do you order the DIY material with grommets already installed? I don't see it as an option in the store.



I don't think it's an option. There are a couple of PDF's on the site as example DIY builds, with one using extruded metal I believe. I'm just going to use rubber spline, the thickest I found at Home Depot. My friend helped me cut all of the wood a couple of weekends ago, and the false wall will be built in the near future.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pgjensen* /forum/post/19454896
> 
> 
> projector is front projection and about 12' from screen mounted in ceiling (built a box)
> 
> 
> components are all behind the screen in a "closet" area uncovered and glaring!
> 
> 
> going to just cover components with a curtain behind that will take care of all of this. i just set it up and haven't had time to work on that.
> 
> 
> i'll use an ir extender and put that in a hole below the screen through the drywall or something.



In your case, you could consider adding a secondary black backing layer to knock the glass reflections down. Glass can occasionally still be an issue, which with flat panels is typically fixed by adjusting their angle down a bit. If you sat on the floor, glass usually causes more issues due to the angle of reflection to the projector. Also, a shorter throw distance helps.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## msmCutter

Can I get verification on the grommets? Is that an option for the DIY fabric or would I have to put those in myself?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lebloganthrope* /forum/post/19455140
> 
> 
> Chriscmore,
> 
> 
> Did you have the opportunity to test your screens with one of the new 3D projectors (JVC, Sony, Mitsubishi...)? they are not plenty of light out of them and it will be pity to use high gain instead of AT screens.



Ours, and any diffusion screen, will work with any 3D system that doesn't depend on polarity preservation. Those systems, either using dual engines like LG, or a dual projector stack like Runco, force you to use silver screens only. Such a tradeoff is then not without compromise, but they do have the advantage of a fat lumen budget if you can afford the hardware.


What most companies are going to doesn't depend on polarity preservation, such as Sony, JVC, and Mistubishi. Sim2's use of Infitec's green/magenta actually works better than you'd think given your previous experiences with color glasses, because these are precision optical filters, not sheet plastic. With these systems the glasses are pricey, but they'll get cheap eventually. The bigger problem is they typically don't have enough lumen budget for you to be putting on sunglasses and have a large screen. We'll need to see more lumens and scalable (e.g. dual lamp) for a proper 2D/3D balance first.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/19456041
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Also, have you had any thoughts about a gray-screen high-contrast material?



Gray as a color doesn't help with contrast. It can sometimes help a light cannon projector where the black levels are poor either from the pj or more likely due to ambient light. I've been experimenting with various materials from time to time but have yet to get anything special put together.


As always, we tend to look at the room problems first: ambient light, light colored walls, ceilings, furnishings, etc. Some screens are meant for fixing room issues (e.g. Firehawk, Black Diamond), but are never without tradeoffs themselves.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msmCutter* /forum/post/19461910
> 
> 
> Can I get verification on the grommets? Is that an option for the DIY fabric or would I have to put those in myself?



We can install grommets for DIY applications no problem. Pm or email for details.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## msmCutter




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/19462070
> 
> 
> We can install grommets for DIY applications no problem. Pm or email for details.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Sweet option


----------



## umr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/19461948
> 
> 
> Ours, and any diffusion screen, will work with any 3D system that doesn't depend on polarity preservation. Those systems, either using dual engines like LG, or a dual projector stack like Runco, force you to use silver screens only. Such a tradeoff is then not without compromise, but they do have the advantage of a fat lumen budget if you can afford the hardware.
> 
> 
> What most companies are going to doesn't depend on polarity preservation, such as Sony, JVC, and Mistubishi. Sim2's use of Infitec's green/magenta actually works better than you'd think given your previous experiences with color glasses, because these are precision optical filters, not sheet plastic. With these systems the glasses are pricey, but they'll get cheap eventually. The bigger problem is they typically don't have enough lumen budget for you to be putting on sunglasses and have a large screen. We'll need to see more lumens and scalable (e.g. dual lamp) for a proper 2D/3D balance first.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I would also give some thought to separate screens if 3D is of major importance.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *umr* /forum/post/19465214
> 
> 
> I would also give some thought to separate screens if 3D is of major importance.



Agreed. Stewart was showing a dual-screen system at CEDIA. Overall, there are some compelling demos with very limited content, but it all seems very premature at this point. The hardware solutions are either quite compromised or insanely expensive for the few movies that are properly formatted for 3D.


The situation will improve when we have some fundamental changes in scalable projected light and more worthy content.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## pgjensen

I just noticed that my Wii doesn't work well with this screen. The pointing gets "doubled" somehow and I can't seem to get it to work. Anyone else notice this?


I have the receiver at the bottom of the screen.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pgjensen* /forum/post/19483870
> 
> 
> I just noticed that my Wii doesn't work well with this screen. The pointing gets "doubled" somehow and I can't seem to get it to work. Anyone else notice this?
> 
> 
> I have the receiver at the bottom of the screen.



The screen has nothing to do with the Wii's IR system. The "receiver" is actually just two IR emitters, and the receiver is in the hand remote. One trick you can do is place two candles - they're IR emitters - about a foot apart and if your Wii works, then you need a new bar.


Also, keep in mind that the pointing scale is not adjustable and was designed for a normal size tv, perhaps 40" or so. In theory you could space two IR sensors like 4 feet apart and then stand 30' back from the screen, but they would need to be very strong IR emitters. But really, it's made for the masses, without calibration, without scaling, and for the average screen size.


Screen size meaning system "feel" - again, the screen doesn't have anything to do with it.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## pgjensen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/19486971
> 
> 
> The screen has nothing to do with the Wii's IR system. The "receiver" is actually just two IR emitters, and the receiver is in the hand remote. One trick you can do is place two candles - they're IR emitters - about a foot apart and if your Wii works, then you need a new bar.
> 
> 
> Also, keep in mind that the pointing scale is not adjustable and was designed for a normal size tv, perhaps 40" or so. In theory you could space two IR sensors like 4 feet apart and then stand 30' back from the screen, but they would need to be very strong IR emitters. But really, it's made for the masses, without calibration, without scaling, and for the average screen size.
> 
> 
> Screen size meaning system "feel" - again, the screen doesn't have anything to do with it.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




I moved the sensor further up and it works better. I think it's a weird reflection issue, but it's fixed now










It also worked behind the screen but I lost about 6 feet of range that I needed for the rear seats.


----------



## jostenmeat

Hey guys, I've made a lot of progress and I'm closing in on the light at the end of the tunnel finally. I have several questions, mostly in regards to light control behind the false wall. I will italicize the questions to help you help me. Hm, after rereading my post, I think I already know the answers, but I just want some support and feedback.









_Firstly, after flipping the extra fabric over as a result of the tilting, I was curious if it was best to just leave the extra material there?_ OK, I suppose not, because the second layer of XD will reflect back through the first layer. I only have the center speaker behind the screen, and there is no issue with any speaker firing through more than one layer.


I was at first planning to do a BB, then I planned on covering the majority of the front wall in speaker cloth (wanted AT for the acoustic panels), but what I finally did was concoct an ugly collage of remaining scraps of a few different materials. I think the main reason I allowed the ugliness was because I thought it was in my best interests to use the remaining black hole Fidelio scraps. This stuff really was made in a black hole!


Well, the issue with this alternate route was that I totally forgot about the reflectivity of the speaker's drivers. _What would you recommend in this case, when leaving as it is except that I: 1) Use the using OEM speaker grille 2) still go with a BB (I have more speaker cloth) w/o OEM grille, or leave everything as is for now and only do something if I ever notice the drivers during viewing?_ Hm, my guess is that you guys will say to use the BB as well.


Gee, getting the XD in was a lot of work for me. I used the second PDF as sort of the basis of my build, but I think I must've missed the tip in the first PDF about pulling with the weaves. I had dados cut out for splining, and had most of it splined, but I gave up because I couldn't succeed in making the screen flat. So I then tried a hybrid spline/staple method, but then finally succeeded only when I ripped out all of the remaining spline and went staple crazy.

_My question concerning the above is how do I know if I have compromised the performance of the material by so much working, reworking, pulling, etc?_ I have read that a mechanical compromise may cause diamond shaped holes, and I am hoping that if there is any compromise, it's for audio only, not video, and any possibly compromised area is somewhere not in front of my center speaker. I did put my test sample side by side with the screen, and I can't notice any differences, but TBH the holes are so small I can't even really tell what shape they are. Thanks for reading my long post!!


(edit: I can't remember how much I consciously thought of pulling with the weaves during splining, but I most definitely did in the end with the stapling session.)


Some photos for fun, dry fitting the false wall framing to see how it came out:










Treatments up:










Mock setup of speakers with my ugly light control collage. This is where I realized I forgot about the drivers' reflectivity (they are metallized polypropylene):










From behind the false wall where I was wondering about the extra fabric:










I think* I finally succeeded in having a smooth flat surface:


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




jostenmeat said:


> Hey guys, I've made a lot of progress and I'm closing in on the light at the end of the tunnel finally. I have several questions, mostly in regards to light control behind the false wall. I will italicize the questions to help you help me. Hm, after rereading my post, I think I already know the answers, but I just want some support and feedback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Firstly, after flipping the extra fabric over as a result of the tilting, I was curious if it was best to just leave the extra material there?_ OK, I suppose not, because the second layer of XD will reflect back through the first layer. I only have the center speaker behind the screen, and there is no issue with any speaker firing through more than one layer.
> 
> 
> I was at first planning to do a BB, then I planned on covering the majority of the front wall in speaker cloth (wanted AT for the acoustic panels), but what I finally did was concoct an ugly collage of remaining scraps of a few different materials. I think the main reason I allowed the ugliness was because I thought it was in my best interests to use the remaining black hole Fidelio scraps. This stuff really was made in a black hole!
> 
> 
> Well, the issue with this alternate route was that I totally forgot about the reflectivity of the speaker's drivers. _What would you recommend in this case, when leaving as it is except that I: 1) Use the using OEM speaker grille 2) still go with a BB (I have more speaker cloth) w/o OEM grille, or leave everything as is for now and only do something if I ever notice the drivers during viewing?_ Hm, my guess is that you guys will say to use the BB as well.
> 
> 
> Gee, getting the XD in was a lot of work for me. I used the second PDF as sort of the basis of my build, but I think I must've missed the tip in the first PDF about pulling with the weaves. I had dados cut out for splining, and had most of it splined, but I gave up because I couldn't succeed in making the screen flat. So I then tried a hybrid spline/staple method, but then finally succeeded only when I ripped out all of the remaining spline and went staple crazy.
> 
> _My question concerning the above is how do I know if I have compromised the performance of the material by so much working, reworking, pulling, etc?_ I have read that a mechanical compromise may cause diamond shaped holes, and I am hoping that if there is any compromise, it's for audio only, not video, and any possibly compromised area is somewhere not in front of my center speaker. I did put my test sample side by side with the screen, and I can't notice any differences, but TBH the holes are so small I can't even really tell what shape they are. Thanks for reading my long post!!
> 
> 
> (edit: I can't remember how much I consciously thought of pulling with the weaves during splining, but I most definitely did in the end with the stapling session.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you didn't put the black backing behind the screen fabric? That would solve your speaker problem.
> 
> 
> I had never looked at their instruction before but I just did now. I have to disagree with how they are rolling the spline in. You should start in the center of one of the long sides working out the the corner, then go back and do from the center to the other corner. Now do the oposite side the same way, center to corner. Then do the short sides the same way. Much like they show in the stapling instruction.


----------



## jostenmeat

Thanks Mopar. I have speaker cloth that I can use as BB and I think that's what I'll do then. The other option I see right now is to use the OEM speaker grille, only if because if I think the speaker cloth backing would be more reflective than the treated front wall. Hmm. After all there are a few strips of Fidelio on the wall.










Thanks for your opinion on spline method, but it's all done now! Mebbe I shoulda asked first here.


I don't think I did, but I really hope I didn't overstress the fabric directly in front of center speaker.



BTW, does anyone have any recommendations for lights behind the false wall to light the speakers up, all cool style? I want them to be on the floor pointing up though, as the spots above mains will eventually be used as height speakers, I think anyways, though I'd need a processor first . . .


The main compromise I would see with this is if I had to move the speakers further back. I am slightly concerned with bad diffraction effects from the inner vertical supports. Well, I don't want to hinder performance in any way, but it could be cool.


edit: I know I've researched this before, but I don't recall anything: What's the best way to clean the XD? And what's the best way to clean lint off the Fidelio? I will run search functions later when time permits, tyvm for now.


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks Mopar. I have speaker cloth that I can use as BB and I think that's what I'll do then. The other option I see right now is to use the OEM speaker grille, only if because if I think the speaker cloth backing would be more reflective than the treated front wall. Hmm. After all there are a few strips of Fidelio on the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your opinion on spline method, but it's all done now! Mebbe I shoulda asked first here.
> 
> 
> I don't think I did, but I really hope I didn't overstress the fabric directly in front of center speaker.
> 
> 
> BTW, does anyone have any recommendations for lights behind the false wall to light the speakers up, all cool style? I want them to be on the floor pointing up though, as the spots above mains will eventually be used as height speakers, I think anyways, though I'd need a processor first . . .
> 
> 
> The main compromise I would see with this is if I had to move the speakers further back. I am slightly concerned with bad diffraction effects from the inner vertical supports. Well, I don't want to hinder performance in any way, but it could be cool.
> 
> 
> edit: I know I've researched this before, but I don't recall anything: What's the best way to clean the XD? And what's the best way to clean lint off the Fidelio? I will run search functions later when time permits, tyvm for now.



Speaker grill cloth behind my screen got rid of the reflections from the metal grills on my JTR's.


I think it would be really hard to overstress the fabric. I really put mine through the ringer with my many attempts to get the wrinkles out before going with grommets and o-rings and it still turned out great.


I wonder how much the speakers will show through if you have grill cloth behind the screen even with light. I will check tomorrow with a flashlight to find out if you can see them.


I think I remember someone saying to clean the XD with a damp cloth, but I could be mistaken.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

I posted this on the general screen forum but realized that I probably should have really posted this on the Seymour specific thread!... so here goes.


I was hoping someone can provide some input as to the performance of this particular combo in general and also as it relates to image brightness as the bulb ages.










I would be pairing a new JVC RS20 projector with a Seymour AV Centerstage XD 120" wide/130" diagonal 2:37 scope screen.


My throw distance will be 16 feet and the 12' x 20' room will be painted a medium colored brown and I will have total light control. I will not be using an Anamorphic Lens at this time.



#1... Will the overall brightness and performance of this particular setup be

acceptable in general?


#2... Will this particular setup provide enough headroom over time to maintain

acceptable brightness as the bulb ages even when considering tweaking the adjustable iris?



Any and all input with would be greatly appreciated!



...Glenn


----------



## Anthony A.

im using an rs35 at 19' throw on a 126" 16:9 screen. plenty bright on low lamp but only have 100hrs on the bulb so far.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun* /forum/post/19517747
> 
> 
> Speaker grill cloth behind my screen got rid of the reflections from the metal grills on my JTR's.
> 
> 
> I think it would be really hard to overstress the fabric. I really put mine through the ringer with my many attempts to get the wrinkles out before going with grommets and o-rings and it still turned out great.
> 
> 
> I wonder how much the speakers will show through if you have grill cloth behind the screen even with light. I will check tomorrow with a flashlight to find out if you can see them.
> 
> 
> I think I remember someone saying to clean the XD with a damp cloth, but I could be mistaken.



THANKS Jedirun! Yeah, in the battle between knuckles and XD fabric, the XD won, haha. It is a very tough material it seems. I am just being paranoid.


I plan on applying BB and mounting the screen later today.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19519217
> 
> 
> I posted this on the general screen forum but realized that I probably should have really posted this on the Seymour specific thread!... so here goes.
> 
> 
> I was hoping someone can provide some input as to the performance of this particular combo in general and also as it relates to image brightness as the bulb ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be pairing a new JVC RS20 projector with a Seymour AV Centerstage XD 120" wide/130" diagonal 2:37 scope screen.
> 
> 
> My throw distance will be 16 feet and the 12' x 20' room will be painted a medium colored brown and I will have total light control. I will not be using an Anamorphic Lens at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> #1... Will the overall brightness and performance of this particular setup be
> 
> acceptable in general?
> 
> 
> #2... Will this particular setup provide enough headroom over time to maintain
> 
> acceptable brightness as the bulb ages even when considering tweaking the adjustable iris?
> 
> 
> 
> Any and all input with would be greatly appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



There is another AVS member who is using pretty much the same setup as Anthony above. IIRC, same PJ, and I think maybe even the same size.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=397 


Also, it may be worth it to clean the prism/diffuser in your PJ once in a while. Very very very easy. I used a microfiber, runner end of pencil, and 99% isopropyl. Difference was like putting in a brand new bulb. Read here, maybe starting around page 5 or so, can't recall.

Please post experience of JVC HD750/350/550/950 bulb lifetime / lamp brightness drop


----------



## Jedirun

I was wrong, even with the speaker grill cloth behind the screen, the speakers are visible in a dark room with a bright light shining on them.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun* /forum/post/19520765
> 
> 
> I was wrong, even with the speaker grill cloth behind the screen, the speakers are visible in a dark room with a bright light shining on them.



Thanks anyways man. I'm done, and am really stoked on the CenterStage XD!!!

















Instead of copy/pasting double digit photos and paragraphs, I'll just give you guys a linky to what I just put up at AH.


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks anyways man. I'm done, and am really stoked on the CenterStage XD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of copy/pasting double digit photos and paragraphs, I'll just give you guys a linky to what I just put up at AH.



I think you missed my meaning. The speaker cloth works great as black backing, but if you do want to see the speakers behind the screen, lighting them up should still work.


Congratulations on being done. I am really stoked on the CenterStage XD as well. The screen and the JTR's really make it so I don't miss the theater.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun* /forum/post/19525319
> 
> 
> I think you missed my meaning. The speaker cloth works great as black backing, but if you do want to see the speakers behind the screen, lighting them up should still work.
> 
> 
> Congratulations on being done. I am really stoked on the CenterStage XD as well. The screen and the JTR's really make it so I don't miss the theater.



OH, haha, thanks.










I will see if I get around to bother lighting em up. Hmm.


----------



## rolette

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* 
I posted this on the general screen forum but realized that I probably should have really posted this on the Seymour specific thread!... so here goes.


I was hoping someone can provide some input as to the performance of this particular combo in general and also as it relates to image brightness as the bulb ages.










I would be pairing a new JVC RS20 projector with a Seymour AV Centerstage XD 120" wide/130" diagonal 2:37 scope screen.


My throw distance will be 16 feet and the 12' x 20' room will be painted a medium colored brown and I will have total light control. I will not be using an Anamorphic Lens at this time.



#1... Will the overall brightness and performance of this particular setup be

acceptable in general?


#2... Will this particular setup provide enough headroom over time to maintain

acceptable brightness as the bulb ages even when considering tweaking the adjustable iris?



Any and all input with would be greatly appreciated!



...Glenn








That's _very_ close to the exact setup I have in my room. Pictures of my theater plus some screenshots of the RS20 + the exact screen you are considering are here .


I've had it for ~15 months now and no issues with brightness. I am planning to try the "prism" cleaning trick today to see if my RS20 has the off-gassing issue, but that's more curiousity than need.


Jay


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Thanks for the response Jay... just what I was looking for!


It seems I might have the same paint, is it Benjamin Moore Daven port Tan?


Thanks for the link to your thread!


I have sent you a PM!



...Glenn


----------



## rolette




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19529517
> 
> 
> It seems I might have the same paint, is it Benjamin Moore Daven port Tan?



Sherwin-Williams Sable


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/19515729
> 
> 
> I don't think I did, but I really hope I didn't overstress the fabric directly in front of center speaker.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun* /forum/post/19517747
> 
> 
> I think it would be really hard to overstress the fabric. I really put mine through the ringer with my many attempts to get the wrinkles out before going with grommets and o-rings and it still turned out great.



Ok, I was wondering, and it dawned on my that I still have the sample. Side by side, the screen looks to be much more spread out. IF this is bad, is it done for, or can it be loosened at the possible expense of a less smooth surface (more waving)?


Or is this normal?


Oh I hope I'm ok, lol. . .


I tried to line the sample along the tilt. Hard to take photos sorta in this cave like room, at least it is in the front. Used a flashlight.


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Josten -


Turn your sample over to the other side and it will look like the screen. Or turn the screen over.


You haven't harmed anything. Even using stretcher bars, I've never heard of failing the material. At a point it will start to fight you back, where you can cause more waves than you fix, but even getting to that point is tough.


Chris


----------



## jostenmeat

Thank you, Chris! What a relief!


----------



## indybrian

My DIY screen from Seymour arrived on Saturday. I ordered material for a 100" diagonal screen and had them cut it and install grommets. I am following the design of Jedirun. Do a search and you can see his screen. He has helped me learn from his build and mine has been smooth so far. I have posted some progress pictures in my build thread.


I must say that after reading the discussion about viewing distance and material weave I was a little nervous. Well I have not watched anything yet on the screen, but just looking at it on the floor I am no longer worried. Some of you guys must have some great eyesight! My first row will be about 12'.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *indybrian* /forum/post/19560214
> 
> 
> My DIY screen from Seymour arrived on Saturday. I ordered material for a 100" diagonal screen and had them cut it and install grommets. I am following the design of Jedirun. Do a search and you can see his screen. He has helped me learn from his build and mine has been smooth so far. I have posted some progress pictures in my build thread.
> 
> 
> I must say that after reading the discussion about viewing distance and material weave I was a little nervous. Well I have not watched anything yet on the screen, but just looking at it on the floor I am no longer worried. Some of you guys must have some great eyesight! My first row will be about 12".



I don't know, at 12" seating distance I think you might be able to see some screen weave!

























...Glenn


----------



## indybrian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19561914
> 
> 
> I don't know, at 12" seating distance I think you might be able to see some screen weave!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



lol, my typing skills are lacking.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *indybrian* /forum/post/19560214
> 
> 
> My DIY screen from Seymour arrived on Saturday. I ordered material for a 100" diagonal screen and had them cut it and install grommets. I am following the design of Jedirun. Do a search and you can see his screen. He has helped me learn from his build and mine has been smooth so far. I have posted some progress pictures in my build thread.
> 
> 
> I must say that after reading the discussion about viewing distance and material weave I was a little nervous. Well I have not watched anything yet on the screen, but just looking at it on the floor I am no longer worried. Some of you guys must have some great eyesight! My first row will be about 12'.




I would be very curious as to your impressions of the screen weave of the Seymour at your seating distance once you are up and running as I am also looking to possibly utilize a Seymour screen at an 11.5 to 12 foot viewing distance with a 120" wide 2.37 Scope set up which would also render a 100" diagonal 16:9 size picture like your setup.


What type of projector will you be using and at what throw distance?


Please do post back here with your impressions after evaluation!



...Glenn : )


----------



## indybrian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19562127
> 
> 
> I would be very curious as to your impressions of the screen weave of the Seymour at your seating distance once you are up and running as I am also looking to possibly utilize a Seymour screen at an 11.5 to 12 foot viewing distance with a 120" wide 2.37 Scope set up which would also render a 100" diagonal 16:9 size picture like your setup.
> 
> 
> What type of projector will you be using and at what throw distance?
> 
> 
> Please do post back here with your impressions after evaluation!
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn : )



Glenn I will post some results when things are complete. You can also follow my build which is in my signature.


I am using an Epson 8350, throw is about 11', 110" diagonal screen, in a light controlled theater.


Brian


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *indybrian* /forum/post/19562191
> 
> 
> Glenn I will post some results when things are complete. You can also follow my build which is in my signature.
> 
> 
> I am using an Epson 8350, throw is about 11', 110" diagonal screen, in a light controlled theater.
> 
> 
> Brian



I know on mine at 12" you can't really see the weave but I can see the diagonal lines running trough it, my screen is tipped. This in only noticable on very bright light colored scenes, not really distracting but you can pick it out.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19562127
> 
> 
> I would be very curious as to your impressions of the screen weave of the Seymour at your seating distance once you are up and running as I am also looking to possibly utilize a Seymour screen at an 11.5 to 12 foot viewing distance with a 120" wide 2.37 Scope set up which would also render a 100" diagonal 16:9 size picture like your setup....
> 
> Glenn



Glenn, suggest you spend $20 for a 2x2 ft sample of XD. That is big enough that, at 12', you should get a good idea of whether fabric weave will be an issue for you. I'm currently using a temp screen that uses polyester fabric from Hancock Fabrics (!). But I got an XD sample to test its AT characteristics, gain, etc. While my Hancock Polyester screen is acceptable in the short term (until I can afford to spring for a Center Stage screen), I can tell from overlaying the XD on top of it how much better the XD is.

FWIW.


----------



## Gig103

So, I see that Chris has masking panels now! Fantastic! I was wondering if anyone can explain how they fit into place? Do they just press against the fabric using the elasticity of the o-rings? I'm thinking that may cause ripples, so maybe I have it wrong.


Thanks!


----------



## SteveHorn

Snug fit between the screen frame members, based in Chris' explanation when they were launched. No reliance on the fabric itself.


----------



## chriscmore

I've been playing with the new CIW panels this week. They're a lot of fun.


I'll shoot out some pics soon and we'll be making them for our largest sizes to see where the limit is. I'm thinking the 160" wide 16:9 is about the limit.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## damonbrodie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/19588376
> 
> 
> I've been playing with the new CIW panels this week. They're a lot of fun.
> 
> 
> I'll shoot out some pics soon and we'll be making them for our largest sizes to see where the limit is. I'm thinking the 160" wide 16:9 is about the limit.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Can't wait to see those! I'll be getting in line for them when they are available!


Damon


----------



## fugueness

My screen just arrived yesterday!


Before:










After:


----------



## Glenn Baumann

The screen looks nice... Enjoy!


I am also contemplating an AT screen. I am still figuring out the size I require.


Are those ripples on the bottom third of your screen? If so, I imagine they will straighten out!










Please post back as soon as you have put the screen through it's paces as I am curious as to your impressions on screen weave visibility, brightness, acoustic transparency etc.!



...Glenn


----------



## WilliamG

Those ripples on the bottom of the screen won't be visible at all when the lights are down. I completely panicked when I got my screen at first because of the ripples. They're a non issue in the dark.







(at least historically)


----------



## Glenn Baumann

WilliamG,


Can the ripples be eradicated via additional tension?










Have you talked to Seymour about it?



...Glenn : )


----------



## damonbrodie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fugueness* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My screen just arrived yesterday!
> 
> 
> Before:
> 
> 
> After:



Can those ripples be adjusted/tensioned out? I would hope so! My center stage is on order - can't wait to get it!


----------



## WilliamG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19616939
> 
> 
> WilliamG,
> 
> 
> Can the ripples be eradicated via additional tension?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you talked to Seymour about it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn : )



There's only so much tension you can do to the screens. And again, it's not an issue. You simply cannot see the ripples during normal viewing.


----------



## fugueness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/19616939
> 
> 
> WilliamG,
> 
> 
> Can the ripples be eradicated via additional tension?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you talked to Seymour about it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn : )



Yes, Chris sent me some tighter O-rings to increase the tension on the lower part of the screen, which should eliminate those ripples.


As WilliamG noted, they are not noticeable once the lights go down!




















Image quality is incredible! Seating distance is 12ft (screen is ~12ft) and I can't see the screen weave. Brightness and acoustic transparency are superb.


----------



## bill1908

I was wondering if anyone is using a Viewsonic Pro8100 with this screen. I am sitting 15' back from a 114.7'' 16x9 retractable seymour screen. In alot of lighter scenes I can see the screen texture and it's annoying. I tried a old Optoma H31 and with that I could not see the pattern and It started to make me think that this projector doesn't match up with this screen or the larger pixel's of the H31 hide it.


I welcome all opinions on this.


----------



## chriscmore

WilliamG's retractable was swapped out with a 4K screen, which was perfectly flat. His previous XD screen is here at the shop and may or may not be B-stocked - I have some upgrades to put on it first and if we get it back to perfect like it should be, it'll look for a new home.


fugueness's hanging fixedframe screen is deceptively huge, at 150" wide. The advantage of our o-ring tension system is that we can literally dial each point tighter or less tight using different sizes of o-rings. I sent a set of tighter ones to him to tighten up that lower third. We can keep going however tight needed - almost infinite flexibility there. If the tension got too tight, you'd see some finger-looking crush tension lines along the frame edge, but the material isn't harmed in any way. Simplicity of construction and an almost infinite ability to fine tune the tension is why we went this route.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## davidtt485

Chris your product is amazing, i have just got the room finished and setup, the screen lets my speakers sing beautifully, this is my first projection setup, the only thing that was hard is i only had a 2 inchs of extra material around each edge of my screen, the moire isnt noticable unless its all white which almost never happens... The screen is the perfect setup for me and i couldnt be happier, im wishing i had ordered it alot sooner...


My setup is a a Optoma HD65

117" diaganol Screen

Custom HTPC built just for this setup with ripped blu ray collection

Pioneer Elite Receiver and Defenitive technology speaker...


This was my first HT room done completely by me and my signifcant other...

http://photos.walmart.com/walmart/sh.../otsi=SALBlink


----------



## tomdanscar

Hi guys i am over here in the uk and have ordered a 2.35 100" wide retractable screen on looking at your pics i cant wait but it is stuck in the snow at chicago so i am going through the posts there is some great theatre rooms on here


also can anyone point in the direction to buy a panamorph uh480 lens


all the best Neil


----------



## chriscmore

In case you have $70k to spend on a home theater and love Stargate so much you always dreamed of being able to sit in the transport deck in your underwear watching anything with Richard Dean Anderson, well, that's our screen.










http://www.flickr.com/photos/visualc...7608001969357/ 

http://gizmodo.com/5422434/someone-a...s-home-theater


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

Quote:

Originally Posted by *chriscmore* 
In case you have $70k to spend on a home theater and love Stargate so much you always dreamed of being able to sit in the transport deck in your underwear watching anything with Richard Dean Anderson, well, that's our screen.










http://www.flickr.com/photos/visualc...7608001969357/ 

http://gizmodo.com/5422434/someone-a...s-home-theater
You best hope my wife doesn't see this.......


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/19784398
> 
> 
> You best hope my wife doesn't see this.......



Hope your wife doesn't see what: the theater, Richard Dean Anderson, or sitting in your underwear?










Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/19785627
> 
> 
> Hope your wife doesn't see what: the theater, Richard Dean Anderson, or sitting in your underwear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Any of the above










Just got the theater done but I can see her wanting one that looks like that, yes we are Stargate fans....It does look really cool but I would think it would be a little distracting to actually sit in and watch a movie. But if I had the money, yea I would go for it. You gotta make me a new screen that looks just like a worm hole even horizon though


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Cool looking room - but as a theater, I dunno - rectangular image through the gate looks kind of cheesy to me.


----------



## sepp

I will receive delivery of a JVC RS40 3D projector by the end of the week and am interested in an XD screen to go with it.

I haven't decided on which shutter glasses to buy:

JVC or Xpand X103 (which is supposed to deliver a better/brighter picture and it's cheaper).

In this thread (see next posts...) there is a discussion about the polarization of the glasses in comparison to the projector's polarization.

As I understand it: If it's a screen that retain's a lot of polarization, the 3D picture with the Xpand glasses would be dimmer than JVCs own glasses nevertheless because the Xpand's polarization is different from the JVC RS40's polarization.

But it all depends on, if the screen material does retain a lot of polarization.

Now my question to Chris or anybody owning an XD screen:

Does the XD screen material retain a lot of polarization?

(How to find that out? It's described in the thread.)


If the answer is no, I could order the Xpand glasses (which seems to be the better choice then).

If yes I would have to go with JVC's glasses.

Thanks!


----------



## sepp

---


----------



## sepp

-->


----------



## sepp

Link to "3D screens and polarization" thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1300238 


Sorry - this was my first post and to post a link you have to have at least 3 posts - so...


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sepp* /forum/post/19815288
> 
> 
> Link to "3D screens and polarization" thread:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1300238
> 
> 
> Sorry - this was my first post and to post a link you have to have at least 3 posts - so...



Generally speaking, the Center Stage XD is like any other near-unity gain, white, Lambertian surface. I know it won't hold polarity enough for passive systems such as the dual-projector Runco system, or other systems that specify a silver 3D screen.


The active shutter glasses don't require silver screens and thus can use white screens. We have folks successfully using the XD screen and 3D systems from JVC, Sony, and Sim2 that I'm aware of. I don't have information on a measurement of how much polarity it preserves, or its compatibility with non-OEM shutter glasses. Perhaps some owners can chime in or if I can send samples somewhere for testing, let me know.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## NicksHitachi

OK, so I've searched and read.


Is the consensus that you should order and test before making a decision on the tilt to reduce moire? Or are some setups moire proof?


I want to go with a DIY Center Stage XD 2.40 120"Diag. Shooting a Panasonic AE 4000U about 15'. Should I worry about moire and order the sample or would this setup be moire-proof?


Also does anyone know how much linear feet it would take on the 15-20 angle for this size screen?


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NicksHitachi* /forum/post/19850523
> 
> 
> OK, so I've searched and read.
> 
> 
> Is the consensus that you should order and test before making a decision on the tilt to reduce moire? Or are some setups moire proof?
> 
> 
> I want to go with a DIY Center Stage XD 2.40 120"Diag. Shooting a Panasonic AE 4000U about 15'. Should I worry about moire and order the sample or would this setup be moire-proof?
> 
> 
> Also does anyone know how much linear feet it would take on the 15-20 angle for this size screen?



I believe moire is particularly an issue with LCD PJs like the Pana, due to lower fill ratio.


I also believe that the premade Seymour screens might come with max tilt. Depending on the size, it may only be a handful of degrees, or it might be a lot, like +30?


My friend helped me figure out the exact maximum I could obtain with google sketch for my DIY, but when I called to order, Chris pretty much immediately blurted out what that number was for me. IOW, if you call or email, he'll tell you what your max will be.


----------



## msmCutter

Or you could just look at the tables and match his prefabbed screens. they're all max tilt.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NicksHitachi* /forum/post/19850523
> 
> 
> OK, so I've searched and read.
> 
> 
> Is the consensus that you should order and test before making a decision on the tilt to reduce moire? Or are some setups moire proof?
> 
> 
> I want to go with a DIY Center Stage XD 2.40 120"Diag. Shooting a Panasonic AE 4000U about 15'. Should I worry about moire and order the sample or would this setup be moire-proof?
> 
> 
> Also does anyone know how much linear feet it would take on the 15-20 angle for this size screen?



Ooh, Math.

I calc the screen to be ~111" (h) x 46"(v) for a 2.40 AR @120" diag.

For a 20 degree tilt (bias), comes up to ~120" (10 ft).

Buy 11 ft of 98"wide fabric to allow for fastening to the frame, etc.

For a 15 degree tilt: 119" (~10 ft). Buy 11 ft.


Can't say if you need tilt/bias for this PJ, I'm sure others will know, especially Chris. But order the sample, its cheap insurance.


----------



## deromax

The Panasonic 4000 have a feature called Smooth Screen. The inviduals pixels are not visibles, so moire is not an issue.


I used tilt in my curent DIY screen but I may build another one someday and will dispense with the tilt.


However, if you think it's possible you will purchase another brand of projector at a later time, tilt is a cheap insurance for a setup that will work.


----------



## NicksHitachi

Ok so sounds like best bet go 20deg tilt and buy the wide fabric about 11ft for 120".


Am I missing anything?


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NicksHitachi* /forum/post/19853071
> 
> 
> Ok so sounds like best bet go 20deg tilt and buy the wide fabric about 11ft for 120".
> 
> 
> Am I missing anything?



Yes, don't trust just my calculations if money is involved. Of course, if you get 11 ft and your screen won't fit at that tilt, just reduce the tilt. Sooner or later - definitely at zero degrees - it should fit.







Seriously, I double checked the math and you should be fine. Plan B would be to pay Chris to cut it for you.


----------



## jeffmcclan

I'm excited as my 130" wide 2.37 Seymour AV fixed CenterStage screen shipped today. Includes Mirabel AV side panels to mask 16:9 content (mainly for sports).


Many thanks to Chris Seymour for his recommendations and confirming speaker locations within side panels. I chose 2.37 AR as the midpoint between 2.35 and 2.40 movies for ease of use (automated zooming).


----------



## Billybobjimbob

Hi all, im new to this thread and have a few questions, hopefully someone will chime in to assist










im considering a 130inch wide scope electric retractable screen. I use a jvc dla 750 pj and sit around 9 feet way. Am i likely to see the screen txture when the pj is on and secondly, how does the swiss black velvet compare to the fidelio and are there likely to be any problems with the velvet border when retracting?


Hats off to Chris for being the first, and only manufacturer to beable to supply a screen with a real velvet border


----------



## design1stcode2nd

16.9 masking is an option on scope retractable screens? The more I think of it the more I'm moving to putting in a retractable screen that goes infront of my LCD instead of making a dedicated theater room.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *design1stcode2nd* /forum/post/19857307
> 
> 
> 16.9 masking is an option on scope retractable screens? The more I think of it the more I'm moving to putting in a retractable screen that goes infront of my LCD instead of making a dedicated theater room.



16:9 and 4:3 Masking is available only for the Scope Fixed Screens and NOT the Retractables!


The Masks are available in either Solid or Acoustcally Transparent.



...Glenn


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Billybobjimbob* /forum/post/19856526
> 
> 
> Hi all, im new to this thread and have a few questions, hopefully someone will chime in to assist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> im considering a 130inch wide scope electric retractable screen. I use a jvc dla 750 pj and sit around 9 feet way. Am i likely to see the screen txture when the pj is on and secondly, how does the swiss black velvet compare to the fidelio and are there likely to be any problems with the velvet border when retracting?
> 
> 
> Hats off to Chris for being the first, and only manufacturer to beable to supply a screen with a real velvet border



While we have a lot of folks doing well at 8 feet, the general consensus is that at about 11 feet most should be fine with the material. We can send a sample for your review if you'd like.


The Fidelio velvet on the fixed frame screens is I think 0.1% darker than the Swiss velvet used in the retractables and fixed masking panels (0.3% vs 0.4% reflectivity). They're color matched, however, to be a consistent black. Evidence of this can be seen in the pictures of the fixed frame screens with the Millibel AT panels.


When retracting, the side velvet will develop crush lines where the tension cables hide behind it, but this isn't visible in a projected situation and you still get the enormous benefit of light absorption of velvet vs. paint (over 10x more reflective).


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Billybobjimbob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/19857990
> 
> 
> While we have a lot of folks doing well at 8 feet, the general consensus is that at about 11 feet most should be fine with the material. We can send a sample for your review if you'd like.
> 
> 
> The Fidelio velvet on the fixed frame screens is I think 0.1% darker than the Swiss velvet used in the retractables and fixed masking panels (0.3% vs 0.4% reflectivity). They're color matched, however, to be a consistent black. Evidence of this can be seen in the pictures of the fixed frame screens with the Millibel AT panels.
> 
> 
> When retracting, the side velvet will develop crush lines where the tension cables hide behind it, but this isn't visible in a projected situation and you still get the enormous benefit of light absorption of velvet vs. paint (over 10x more reflective).
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks for that feedback chris, its most helpful. It maybe best that i order a sample of the material to see how it looks. Tbh, its not the acoustic transparency that is the attraction, more the fact its retractable with a velvet border


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Billybobjimbob* /forum/post/19858754
> 
> 
> Thanks for that feedback chris, its most helpful. It maybe best that i order a sample of the material to see how it looks. Tbh, its not the acoustic transparency that is the attraction, more the fact its retractable with a velvet border



Well, talk about a ridiculously huge side bonus!

















Here is a good reference for measured comparisons of a bunch of materials as done by Chris.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=232


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Getting the center channel behind the screen is the biggest thing, that is what you want. If the L/R are slightly off to the sides of the screen it is not too big of a deal. When I run in 16:9 mode my sides are out side the screen, but when I run in 2.35 they are behind the screen. Either way sounds great. My first row is about 12' from the screen and it look killer, no complaints here. Oh I have the Panny 400 also, I would recomend getting the wider material so you can tilt the screen, just to be safe.



Mopar

How are you getting a picture bright enough from the Panny4000 for a screen so big? I am assuming your screen area is apprx 57 sq. ft., calibrated lumens =550' 1.1 gain, resulting in about 11 ft-lamberts

Am I mistaken? If it works for you, I'd like to know how because I'll do the same thing

Thanks


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

11fL is actually brighter than most commercial theatres and probably most home set ups - I would think that not many people are achieving that unless they have small screens - unless you've a light meter to measure your own set up you're not going to know - most projector lumen outputs are less than advertised and after dimming with age, even less.


Anything above 7fL looks bright enough for most people who don't know what levels they're getting. I've even calibrated a display that was giving just 3fL but the owner was blissfully unaware and seemed pretty happy with it. If you've a darkened room you'll be surprised how low the image brightness can be and yet still look bright enough for most things.


If you watch SD material such as DVD, you'll want to keep the fL down to suppress image noise/compression artefacts anyway (unless you don't notice things like that).


Gary


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/19884944
> 
> 
> Mopar
> 
> How are you getting a picture bright enough from the Panny4000 for a screen so big? I am assuming your screen area is apprx 57 sq. ft., calibrated lumens =550' 1.1 gain, resulting in about 11 ft-lamberts
> 
> Am I mistaken? If it works for you, I'd like to know how because I'll do the same thing
> 
> Thanks



Screen area at 2.35 is about 57 sq.ft. yes. But at 2.35 the projector is still putting out a 16:9 image that is about 79 sq.ft.


I am running the lamp in ECO mode and using the Color1 setting (most acurate color but also dimmest). I know the math doesn't work and on paper it says that it shouldn't work at all but we are very happy with the picture. The room is completely dark with no light except the star ceiling whcih I am sure help. I know when you are sitting in that dark room and a bright seems comes up it almost hurts the eyes. If I have some lighting on in the room to watch TV or whatever I bump it up to normal picture mode or dynamic and it brightens up alot, I have yet to use the normal bulb mode. Now the disclaimer is that this is my first and only projector so I have nothiing to compare it to, we love it but someone else with a better projector might come and look at it and think it looks like junk? Luckly we have no friends with anything that comes close to a projector set-up so they are all blown away. I have no plans on a new projector unless 3D really comes around to be something that is going to stay.


If you are eve in the area stop and take a look







just a short trip


----------



## DIYHomeTheater

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Crabalocker*
I am not quite done yet, maybe 80%. I still have my clean up and some finishing work to do. I know the bezel edge is not very level, but I'll fix that later (Velcro makes it easy but it's still a pain to remove).


The screen is 153" diagonal with an Epson 8500UB and the sitting area is 15' back. The screen picture looks really good, maybe a little green push, I'll have to recalibrate the projector later. The other area to the side has a 55" Samsung 3d TV. So far I am really happy with how it's turning out. The screen material cost around $380 (shipping included) with the total cost of the wall and screen being around $700. It's not a so called dedicated theater room but more of a family room, or as one of my friends put it ...... "it's a multi-plex"


Please don't laugh at my little Polk speakers, they look small but do sound pretty good. I was really surprised how big they sounded for a little speaker, they are only a band-aid solution till I upgrade next year. You can see I built my own speaker stand so I could turn my center channel speaker vertical.


I know it looks bad but I didn't have a choice, I had to run the HDMI cable across the roof, it doesn't look great but had to do what I had to do.


Wanted to show more of the construction but would only let me upload 5 pics. You can see black velvet tape covering my lag bolts in the picture 'behind the screen shot' up the side of the inside of the screen frame. I use the lag bolts to tension the screen if needed later. I used lag screws for the top of the frame so I could tension in the vertical direction as well, I used 8 or 9 lag screws for the top.


Again I'm not happy with the access area, it's behind where the audio equipment is.


I had to use our crappy old digital camera, I still can't find my other charger. The pictures don't really do it justice, it looks a lot better in person.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1284609958
How do you get such a lit properly with a PJ that is rated only 500 lumens in the best mode?


----------



## DIYHomeTheater

Quote:

Originally Posted by *WilliamG*
If you guys are interested, I just became Chris Seymour's very first retractable-4K-material customer from his new joint venture with Screen Excellence!


Feel free to read about my experience here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...8&postcount=97
William/Chris

My planned front row will be at least 14' away (conservatively). Will the XD weave be visible? Is EN4K worth it at that distance?

I am redesigning some of the dimensions based on the discussion above. I think that I will aim for the following:


2.40 screen (with anamorphic lens) using XD Center Stage with the following dimensions: 163"W x 68"H, 24" from floor, 10" below ceiling. Dark burgundy flat wall and ceiling paint.

First row=16.5' away (to maintain at most 45 degree viewing angle for front row)

Second row = 23.5 ' away


Using BenQ W6000 in a light controlled room, that will give calibrated lumens of about 1050, the screen brightness at 1.1 (conservative) gain will be = 15 ft. lamberts. This seems to be more than adequate for a fully light controlled room. Does anyone think that this is too optimistic or unrealistic?


Any moire issues with BenQ and XD since I don't think that even the 98" wide roll can be tilted 15 degrees for such a large screen?

Should I be concerned about the screen being too close to the ceiling?


Thanks


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 11fL is actually brighter than most commercial theatres and probably most home set ups - I would think that not many people are achieving that unless they have small screens - unless you've a light meter to measure your own set up you're not going to know - most projector lumen outputs are less than advertised and after dimming with age, even less.
> 
> 
> Anything above 7fL looks bright enough for most people who don't know what levels they're getting. I've even calibrated a display that was giving just 3fL but the owner was blissfully unaware and seemed pretty happy with it. If you've a darkened room you'll be surprised how low the image brightness can be and yet still look bright enough for most things.
> 
> 
> If you watch SD material such as DVD, you'll want to keep the fL down to suppress image noise/compression artefacts anyway (unless you don't notice things like that).
> 
> 
> Gary



That's encouraging. I was thinking of pairing BenqW6000 with a 170+" XD 2.40 screen and was wondering if it would be bright enough in a light controlled room. 3fl? That's amazing!


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Screen area at 2.35 is about 57 sq.ft. yes. But at 2.35 the projector is still putting out a 16:9 image that is about 79 sq.ft.
> 
> 
> I am running the lamp in ECO mode and using the Color1 setting (most acurate color but also dimmest). I know the math doesn't work and on paper it says that it shouldn't work at all but we are very happy with the picture. The room is completely dark with no light except the star ceiling whcih I am sure help. I know when you are sitting in that dark room and a bright seems comes up it almost hurts the eyes. If I have some lighting on in the room to watch TV or whatever I bump it up to normal picture mode or dynamic and it brightens up alot, I have yet to use the normal bulb mode. Now the disclaimer is that this is my first and only projector so I have nothiing to compare it to, we love it but someone else with a better projector might come and look at it and think it looks like junk? Luckly we have no friends with anything that comes close to a projector set-up so they are all blown away. I have no plans on a new projector unless 3D really comes around to be something that is going to stay.
> 
> 
> If you are eve in the area stop and take a look
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just a short trip



Thanks, Mopar

I'm very encouraged. Working theoretically, I was thinking $40k for a light cannon and was getting very discouraged. Now, it seems possible


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/19887088
> 
> 
> That's encouraging. I was thinking of pairing BenqW6000 with a 170+" XD 2.40 screen and was wondering if it would be bright enough in a light controlled room. 3fl? That's amazing!



I'd still encourage folks to keep their image dynamics up and moderate their image size a bit. At 14', 170" wide, you'd have a head-turning 54 degree field of vision. At 45, the apparent resolution starts to diminish, so past that you are trading sharpness for immersion. Also, 24 frames per second flying across 54 degrees of vision can be fatiguing for many. Not many projectors can keep up image dynamics at that size, and you'd especially need a blacked out cave.


Of course, personal preferences trump guidelines, so do what makes you happy. Every time I go to an Imax, someone is in the front row.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## DIYHomeTheater

Quote:

Originally Posted by *chriscmore*
I'd still encourage folks to keep their image dynamics up and moderate their image size a bit. At 14', 170" wide, you'd have a head-turning 54 degree field of vision. At 45, the apparent resolution starts to diminish, so past that you are trading sharpness for immersion. Also, 24 frames per second flying across 54 degrees of vision can be fatiguing for many. Not many projectors can keep up image dynamics at that size, and you'd especially need a blacked out cave.


Of course, personal preferences trump guidelines, so do what makes you happy. Every time I go to an Imax, someone is in the front row.


Cheers,

Chris
Chris:

I calculated a 45 degree viewing angle seated at 16.5' for a 14' wide screen. (I meant 14' minimum.). I want to stay at or just below 45 degrees

I am stoked about XD. Not sure if I can achieve a 15 degree tilt for a screen that large. Also, at these distances are there any advantages of EN4K over XD? Would appreciate if you could address the questions asked in an earlier post to you an William. Especially the one about 10" difference between top of screen and ceiling. Thanks


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/19889867
> 
> 
> ... Not sure if I can achieve a 15 degree tilt for a screen that large. Also, at these distances are there any advantages of EN4K over XD? ...



Oooh, more math. I calc the largest tilt/bias you can get for 163x68 is 10 degrees. The widest XD fabric is 98". A 10 degree bias cut takes it to ~95". And this doesn't allow for any fastening space on the sides. But maybe you don't need tilt with that pj. Maybe others can answer that.

I can't tell from your posts whether you're planning a DIY screen or commercial (Center Stage w/XD or Screen Excellence (w/EN4K).). The EN4K is not available as fabric only, AFAIK. See Chris Seymour's previous post re sales channels for S-SE screens.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/19889867
> 
> 
> ...for a 14' wide screen. (I meant 14' minimum.). I want to stay at or just below 45 degrees. I am stoked about XD. Not sure if I can achieve a 15 degree tilt for a screen that large. Also, at these distances are there any advantages of EN4K over XD? Would appreciate if you could address the questions asked in an earlier post to you an William. Especially the one about 10" difference between top of screen and ceiling. Thanks



Don't worry about the amount of tilt. As long as it is using our tilt methodology of 20 degrees or what can fit on the roll as the screen size increases, the screen is 100% projector proof. But for the mathophiles, with some margin added for attachment technique, you'd be at about a 8 degree tilt.


At a 16.5' seating distance from that large a screen, I'd recommend the XD over the EN4K due to its image dynamics.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/19886692
> 
> 
> William/Chris
> 
> My planned front row will be at least 14' away (conservatively). Will the XD weave be visible? Is EN4K worth it at that distance?



Few people can see the weave at 14', very few have any issue at that distance, and none that I know of at your 16.5' seating distance. Given that people are satisfied as close as 8 feet, personal differences in vision and perception are a factor, so I always encourage checking out a sample. Our materials hold their own especially among AT screens, but even against non-AT screens.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/19886692
> 
> 
> Using BenQ W6000 in a light controlled room, that will give calibrated lumens of about 1050, the screen brightness at 1.1 (conservative) gain will be = 15 ft. lamberts. This seems to be more than adequate for a fully light controlled room. Does anyone think that this is too optimistic or unrealistic?
> 
> 
> ...Should I be concerned about the screen being too close to the ceiling?



Ideally, this should be fine. It would be nice to have a bit more lumen budget to factor in reduction in output as the bulb ages. You may be finding that you want to replace the bulb sooner.


Any Lambertian, near-unity screen will splash light everywhere, so either spacing the screen further from the ceiling or darkening the color of the ceiling helps. A few bucks in dark paint can do wonders for the image dynamics.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

I've got a near black (very dark brown) ceiling, and my soffits will be black (fabric). Considering the rest of the room colors now - for side walls, how dark is "dark enough"? I.e. How much impact do dark wall colors have on contrast, vs. ceiling color? Obviously, pitch black everywhere is ideal, but looking for some other way of characterizing the impact, to help me narrow my selections.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/19892614
> 
> 
> I've got a near black (very dark brown) ceiling, and my soffits will be black (fabric). Considering the rest of the room colors now - for side walls, how dark is "dark enough"? I.e. How much impact do dark wall colors have on contrast, vs. ceiling color? Obviously, pitch black everywhere is ideal, but looking for some other way of characterizing the impact, to help me narrow my selections.



I was discussing that recently with Joel Silver, and his point was that the room still has to be livable. Getting to at least a medium tone has easily visible improvements in most any projection application, but blacking out the room may have more cost to the usability to the room than its diminishing returns justify.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## dangc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/19892838
> 
> 
> I was discussing that recently with Joel Silver, and his point was that the room still has to be livable. Getting to at least a medium tone has easily visible improvements in most any projection application, but blacking out the room may have more cost to the usability to the room than its diminishing returns justify.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I just thought I would throw out some advantages of going completely black and dispel some concerns as I recently finally completed my theater that includes flat black painted ceiling, walls covered in black commando cloth, and black carpet. Should be noted that my theater room is dedicated to the task but I also use it for watching sports and playing some XBox or PS3 every now and again too.


Originally I was skeptical about doing this and in fact early on in the earlier generations of my theater I had all white walls and ceiling with light carpet and was trying to use light rejecting screens etc to obtain a good image. (I have gone from one extreme to the other)


Here is why I believe doing black out theater is better than one might originally think beyond the obvious which is best picture possible on the screen while reducing the number of ft lamberts required to have a great picture (5 ft lamberts looks good to me now where I needed at least 10 before). I always hear how this now limits the use of the room because who wants to sit in the dark all the time....I disagree. With the room blacked out I can still easily turn on the recessed lights full up that are positioned over the seating area (4 65 watt cans) which provides good lighting for watching sports so you are not sitting in the dark with your buddies but still maintains a great picture. The light is maintained in the seating area with very little reflection on the screen, others comment how much better the theater is this year for sports parties because of this. Works great for playing video games as well.


If you have a dedicated theater room, I highly recommend black. No the room is not fancy with lots of colors and decorative elements but the result is still very nice clean looking room. Of course I am a function over style guy so take this as you would.


As a side note I would just like to say that SeymourAV provides a fantastic product with the best customer service I have ever dealt with especially for such a great price. Chris, I don't know if you remember me, but you helped me put together a grommeted XD screen custom fit to cover my entire front wall (I figure not many people do that so maybe that might spark a memory). Even if you don't remember, it turned out perfect! I can't tell you how much I appreciate the number of emails and phone calls you afforded me to ensure my project turned out as good as it did.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Thanks Chris, that helps, and is in line with my intuition - I have visited other HTs with medium darkness walls or even lighter, and didn't (consciously) feel they were lacking as far as the visual experience. But didn't consciously try to discern between experiences in pure black vs. lighter walled HTs - kind of hard to A/B.










Hmm, black and (medium) tan...yeah that would look nice.


Edit: thanks dangc as well for your perspective!


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about the amount of tilt. As long as it is using our tilt methodology of 20 degrees or what can fit on the roll as the screen size increases, the screen is 100% projector proof. But for the mathophiles, with some margin added for attachment technique, you'd be at about a 8 degree tilt.
> 
> 
> At a 16.5' seating distance from that large a screen, I'd recommend the XD over the EN4K due to its image dynamics.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Chris:

XD center Stage DIY fabric it will be! Thanks

I have dark flat paint on the ceilings


----------



## SD Vidiot

Let me start by saying that it was a pleasure to deal with Chris and his company. I always got quick email responses (even afterhours) and the screen shipped rapidly and arrived in pristine condition.


I bought a 105" fixed 2.35:1 Center Stage XD screen with AT side panels. It was ridiculously easy to put together in about an hour. All the parts fit tightly and are of the finest quality. The O-rings provide perfect tension and there are no ripples. The masking panels take a little fooling around to get them tight, however. They look great once in.


The screen hangs on a wall painted matte navy. I absolutely cannot see my Axiom Audio inwall speakers reflecting through the screen despite the white and silver cones. The black backing is unnecessary in my application.


I'm sitting 9' from the screen. I can only see the weave of the fabric in static, light colored, monochromatic scenes (watching Tiger choke this weekend on the putting greens at Torrey Pines, for example!). I only see it when I'm looking for it. Of course, no one else sees it! I cannot make it out in any other type of video material. Frankly, it doesn't bother me one wit and having the sound coming directly from the screen trumps any shortcomings.


I recommend this product without reservation.


----------



## dlynch34

OK I am seriously wanting to get this screen fabric from seymour. I want to make my own 2:35 curved screen with it. Does anyone know the maximum size I can get from this material using a sony vpl-vw60 projector with a scope lens? I dont want to lose too much pop but want to make sure I can get my whole sound stage behind the speakers as well.


THanks,


Don


----------



## pumori

Just looked at adding the Gen4 motorized screen that I am about to hang to my Harmony One. SeymourAV is not listed under Home Automation/Home Appliance. However, when I use the -Not Listed- option and type in "SeymourAV" then just "Screen" after it says it can't find it I see "seymourav" (I entered caps) and "Gen4 Retractable Screen". It doesn't appear to have any IR codes associated with it and indicates that it doesn't match anything in the database.

So it does appear that "Gen4 Retractable Screen" exists somewhere in the system but it doesn't work. Do I need to buy a remote from SeymourAV to use to program my Harmony manually (my old Pronto died so I can't go that route)?


----------



## NicksHitachi

OK, spoke with Chris about the Center Stage XD. I'm probably going with this fabric. I want to tension it with window screen track and roll the spline in tensioning the fabric.


Has anyone done this?

How does it work out?

How thick is the fabric?

What size spline did you use?


I have a sample on the way, but wanted to ask for advice first.....


Here's a pic of the mounting setup:




















How do you think this will work?


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NicksHitachi* /forum/post/19954640
> 
> 
> OK, spoke with Chris about the Center Stage XD. I'm probably going with this fabric. I want to tension it with window screen track and roll the spline in tensioning the fabric.
> 
> 
> Has anyone done this?
> 
> How does it work out?
> 
> How thick is the fabric?
> 
> What size spline did you use?
> 
> 
> I have a sample on the way, but wanted to ask for advice first.....
> 
> 
> 
> How do you think this will work?



My screen is built very similar using the XD fabric in a screen spline channel along with the black backing, it will work no problem with that. The fabric is pretty heavy so if your screen channel came with spline it is probably going to be too big to roll the XD fabric in, get your self some smaller spline. Also buy a good metal spline roller, not some cheap plastic thing. The fabric has very little stretch to it so you have to pull pretty hard to get it nice and tight. The other thing to watch for is that you get your frame is well seasoned, another words bone dry. I made mine last june and did let the wood sit in the house for a couple of weeks. Well just last night actually I pulled the screen back down and had to retention one long edge, wasn't a big deal and only took about 1/2 hour to do. It only had one small wrinkle up on top that wasn't even visable when watching a movie but I knew it was their so wanted to get rid of it. In June the humidity is much higher then now so the frame shrunk just enough.


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/19892018
> 
> 
> Don't worry about the amount of tilt. As long as it is using our tilt methodology of 20 degrees or what can fit on the roll as the screen size increases, the screen is 100% projector proof. But for the mathophiles, with some margin added for attachment technique, you'd be at about a 8 degree tilt.
> 
> 
> At a 16.5' seating distance from that large a screen, I'd recommend the XD over the EN4K due to its image dynamics.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I know it's a long ways off, ie. home 4k projectors..............but wouldn't the SeymourSE 4k material be future proof?


I'm leaning toward the 4k knowing my screen is 130-140" wide with front row seating at 14-16 feet-- depends on screen size and projector.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pumori* /forum/post/19954586
> 
> 
> Just looked at adding the Gen4 motorized screen that I am about to hang to my Harmony One. SeymourAV is not listed under Home Automation/Home Appliance. However, when I use the -Not Listed- option and type in "SeymourAV" then just "Screen" after it says it can't find it I see "seymourav" (I entered caps) and "Gen4 Retractable Screen". It doesn't appear to have any IR codes associated with it and indicates that it doesn't match anything in the database.
> 
> So it does appear that "Gen4 Retractable Screen" exists somewhere in the system but it doesn't work. Do I need to buy a remote from SeymourAV to use to program my Harmony manually (my old Pronto died so I can't go that route)?



I found this on The Seymour site, under Instructions/Downloads. If the Harmony can do (i.e. you can teach it) Pronto codes this should take care of it. If not, I suppose you could buy/borrow a Pronto or other Pronto-wise remote, teach it from this file, then use it to teach the Harmony. But that shouldn't be necessary. (As I type this, I recall seeing other threads about teaching a Harmony. Try doing a search in this forum.Seems Like I was going to loan my old Pronto for this purpose but he found another way. Search.)


Edit: I found this in an earlier posting. Search using "Harmony" to find the complete set of posts:

"...The standard Gen4 motor controllers. The Somfy motors can also be found in "Appliance", vendor "Somfy." (Chris Seymour).

Try that.


----------



## 18628239

Ok, so a handful of months have gone by and I can say I am really enjoying the Seymour F120 screen with the JVC RS20 in my theater. Once you go AT you never go back.


----------



## edmove

Here are some photos from my visit out to Seymour AV last Saturday. Thanks Chris for letting me swing up form West Des Moines to check out the shop and answer my questions. Top notch service!

http://www.husar.us/blog/archives/160695 


I do have my screen built. I finished it about 5 minutes into the Super Bowl last night. I went with the full 120''. I will post photos very soon to my build page on AVS and to my blog. Front row am only about 11-12 feet from the screen and I can't see any weave at all when. I have not really had a change to do some distance checking on when I can see it but I will post an update on this when I do.


Thanks again.


----------



## NicksHitachi

Got the sample in the mail today, I expected it to be high quality but I was surprised how nice this stuff is...... The weave disappears after about 8ft to me in my bright living room, should be real nice at 12' in the theater....


Cant want to order the rest of the screen!


----------



## edmove

NicksHitachi, I just finished my screen last night. 130'' with a Epson 8350. I am viewing from 11 feet and I can't see any weave at all. Love the screen and it was an easy DIY project.


----------



## Juanflaco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edmove* /forum/post/19965653
> 
> 
> Here are some photos from my visit out to Seymour AV last Saturday. Thanks Chris for letting me swing up form West Des Moines to check out the shop and answer my questions. Top notch service!
> 
> http://www.husar.us/blog/archives/160695
> 
> 
> I do have my screen built. I finished it about 5 minutes into the Super Bowl last night. I went with the full 120''. I will post photos very soon to my build page on AVS and to my blog. Front row am only about 11-12 feet from the screen and I can't see any weave at all when. I have not really had a change to do some distance checking on when I can see it but I will post an update on this when I do.
> 
> 
> Thanks again.



Nice! It's always cool to get that close to the manufacturing process when buying something. Thanks for sharing pics of the shop.


My wife and I just returned from taking our daughter to school to find a large tube sitting on the front step. My Centerstage XD material has arrived!


I ordered enough to do 101" wide scope (101x42) (my room is only 9' x 13') but I keep going back and forth, wondering if I should maximize my 16:9 size by going 84x47 (47 being available height near max zoom.) I just can't bear the thought of cutting this beautiful material and locking myself into either option so I'm leaning towards creating an odd AR screen (101x47) and masking for 16:9 now, perhaps switching to scope later with new masking panels.


I'd like to maintain the flexibility this would offer but realize that the screen won't look quite as clean as it would if I could just make up my mind










To bring this back on-topic, I can't wait to get the screen up! I tested with a sample, no moire with my HD20 and couldn't see the weave at my 9.5' seating distance. My build is pretty modest but I'm confident this screen is going to be a terrific centerpiece to the whole experience.


----------



## deromax

I'd go 2.35:1. Blockbuster movies are mostly 2.35 and you can bet there will be more and more, as filmakers wants to differenciate their movies from regular TV, which is now 16:9.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I'd go scope and possibly move the seating a foot closer provided moire wasn't an issue. Good to know the material isn't visible at closer seating distances needed for smaller screens.


Gary


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Juanflaco* /forum/post/19977064
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I'd like to maintain the flexibility this would offer but realize that the screen won't look quite as clean as it would if I could just make up my mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ask yourself:

1) which AR screen (1.78 or 2.35) looks (aesthetic fit, considering WAF) better in the room?

2) What do watch (and enjoy) more - 'scope or HD?

3) How do your LCRs fit into all this?

4) Are you ready to mask for both AR's (horiz for 2.35, vert for 1.78)? (That typed, depending upon the light control in your room, you may not even need masking.)

5) For the 2.35 AR, what is the view angle of those sitting closest to the screen? Will they be swiveling their heads like they're watching a tennis match?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

You usually need to be closer than a 120 degree viewing angle before you have to move your head to see the edges of the screen - that's around a 0.5 x image height distance or closer for a 16:9 screen (0.67 x IH for a scope screen).


2.4 x the image height gives 40 degrees and is where THX recommend you sit for 1080 HDTV 16:9 (best quality/immersion) but it's best to try things first to see what suits you. If you zoom for scope you may find the image a little chunky so can't sit as close as you would if you were using an anamorphic lens, so that's why testing will tell you what works for you. The screen texture itself may be the limiting factor for how close you end up sitting in some cases.


For movies, anywhere between 2 to 4 x the image height is the range where you would sit in a commercial theatre, so if you want to replicate that at home, you can try to get your seats at a similar distance to where you'd sit in the theatre.


Gary


----------



## Juanflaco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/19977729
> 
> 
> Ask yourself:
> 
> 1) which AR screen (1.78 or 2.35) looks (aesthetic fit, considering WAF) better in the room?
> 
> 2) What do watch (and enjoy) more - 'scope or HD?
> 
> 3) How do your LCRs fit into all this?
> 
> 4) Are you ready to mask for both AR's (horiz for 2.35, vert for 1.78)? (That typed, depending upon the light control in your room, you may not even need masking.)
> 
> 5) For the 2.35 AR, what is the view angle of those sitting closest to the screen? Will they be swiveling their heads like they're watching a tennis match?



1. I think either AR screen would look great in the room.


2. It's gotta be close to 50/50. Unfortunately I like a big 16:9 for my 360 gaming, and I want a big scope picture for "blockbuster" movie nights for friends and family. The room just isn't wide enough (9') for me to get a scope screen in there at my required 16:9 image height.


3. See diagrams below for anticipated LCR placement.


4. I do have a masking plan for either 16:9 or scope, but I don't plan on going back and forth a bunch. I just don't want to waste screen material if I get the whole thing set up at 16:9 and decide I should have gone scope. If that happens I'll add narrow horizontal masking at top and bottom to get the proper scope ratio, then will use new panels to mask for 16:9 as needed.


I also don't want to commit to scope now because I'm nervous about wanting a bigger 16:9 picture, and afraid I won't be able to come up with an acceptable DIY anamorphic lens using trophy wedges.


5. A 101" scope screen at 9.5' would result in a viewing angle of approx. 48 degrees, so that shouldn't be too bad at all.


So what I'm thinking is I'll build the screen initially like so (wider than 16:9 but not quite scope; these diagrams are actual scale)...











Then if I decide that the bigger 16:9 image wasn't worth it (96" diagonal vs. 86" diagonal), and I can come up with an affordable anamorphic lens, I'll remove the side panels, mask the top and bottom, and run with the following (creating new masking panels for use with 16:9 content)...











Thanks very much for the feedback!


----------



## msmCutter

Why build it with that kind of frame? Couldn't you just get the biggest piece of fabric that will fit in the space and mask the whole thing to taste? Curtains do a great job. You could make them out of the black backing or similar AT material. That's the easy way of going CIH. If you want to change the height you have to make masking that's adjustable up/down too. But that's not splitting the atom is it?


----------



## Juanflaco

Quote:

Originally Posted by *msmCutter* 
Why build it with that kind of frame? Couldn't you just get the biggest piece of fabric that will fit in the space and mask the whole thing to taste? Curtains do a great job. You could make them out of the black backing or similar AT material. That's the easy way of going CIH. If you want to change the height you have to make masking that's adjustable up/down too. But that's not splitting the atom is it?
Hmmm. Interesting. If I understand you correctly the screen would be mounted on top of the frame instead of behind it? I do need some sort of frame so the screen can be removed to access the area behind it, but I wouldn't have so many lines in the front wall between screen wall panels (which need to be removed to access storage shelves), the screen frame and the masking panels. Would be a much cleaner look I think. Thanks for the suggestion. The only issue that comes to mind is that I plan to illuminate the area behind the screen which would leave a dark border where the frame is.


I do apologize for taking the thread off-topic. I'll find a spot for a separate construction thread to solicit feedback.


----------



## msmCutter

You have to have a frame of some sort... or do you?


You could do a trampoline rig or tarp clips to hold it in place. The masking would be such that even all the way open, all that would be hidden. You could still take down the masking and unclip the screen for access. If you backlit it you couldn't see what was behind the masking anyway - clips/grommets/whatever are hidden - all you see is the back glow from inside the masked area.


----------



## kitkat99

Help Please.

I have a 120in 16x9 Center stage xd with the gen 4 standard ir remote, I pushed the button for down, the screen began coming and it just stopped and will not do anything. It is hanging out about 6 in form the case. The remote has power, the light on the wire hanging of the case lights up when I push the remote, and I can even hear a click when I push the button. What is wrong and what shoud I do. I have had this for more than a year now. Thanks


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kitkat99* /forum/post/19987199
> 
> 
> Help Please.
> 
> I have a 120in 16x9 Center stage xd with the gen 4 standard ir remote, I pushed the button for down, the screen began coming and it just stopped and will not do anything. It is hanging out about 6 in form the case. The remote has power, the light on the wire hanging of the case lights up when I push the remote, and I can even hear a click when I push the button. What is wrong and what shoud I do. I have had this for more than a year now. Thanks



If you haven't replaced the batteries in the RF remote yet, they may be due. If when you press the remote, the light on the screen flashes several times, then you need to reassign the remote to the screen, but I'd recommend doing this after battery replacement. To reassign the remotes, press the screen button, release and see the LED will stay on. Then, press the middle stop button on the remote and the motor will jog to confirm that the remote handshake has occurred.


If none of this helps or otherwise I'd recommend you call us up at 515-450-5694 or email at [email protected] and we'll dig deeper.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## kitkat99

The lights on the screen led only flashed once with remote, and remote light blinked once also when I press once, just like it normally did. I got my ladder out. I unplugged and replugged in and now it works fine. go figure. thanks


----------



## dtesterunc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Juanflaco* /forum/post/19982953
> 
> 
> Hmmm. Interesting. If I understand you correctly the screen would be mounted on top of the frame instead of behind it? I do need some sort of frame so the screen can be removed to access the area behind it, but I wouldn't have so many lines in the front wall between screen wall panels (which need to be removed to access storage shelves), the screen frame and the masking panels. Would be a much cleaner look I think. Thanks for the suggestion. The only issue that comes to mind is that I plan to illuminate the area behind the screen which would leave a dark border where the frame is.
> 
> 
> I do apologize for taking the thread off-topic. I'll find a spot for a separate construction thread to solicit feedback.




You can see my HT construction link below to see how I made my screen. By the way the SeymourAV material really rocks!!. Made my screen come alive.


----------



## kitkat99

Actually it stopped again, I will email you a video of it, let me know, thanks.


----------



## pocoloco

Here's my Carada retrofit project. Currently have a 120" 2.35 carada screen but always wanted an AT setup. I was able to successfully mount the XD fabric onto the carada frame using the existing snaps on the frame.


Rex from Carada was nice enough to let me purchase the factory snaps they use on their screens. Can't say enough about how nice these guys are. If they had an AT fabric option, I would have just bought one from them and saved my hands the pain. I bought the plier tool separately. Had to put a lot of pressure on the pliers to attach the snaps but it worked.











Here's the XD fabric precision cut to size and laid on top of the frame.











Working from the center out, I painstakingly installed the snaps one by one as they were mounted. Took about 3 hours.




















There were a few waves that required me to rip out some snaps and reinstall.











Final product.











I'm impressed by the screen. I was worried that it'd be dim and that I'd see the screen texture but no problems at all. It looks great from 12' back. Loving the audio coming straight out of the screen.


----------



## SteveHorn

Pocoloco, nicely done! I suspect that locating the snaps on the fabric to match the existing locations on the frame was a hoot. Especially when you had to account for stretching the fabric, which doesn't stretch much. Enjoy your 2.35 AT!


----------



## Anthony A.

really nice work you did there. i had, years ago, contacted carada to see if they would install the snaps for me onto my xd material so i could use it on their masquerade system but they would not take the chance. i ended up building a masking system that works pretty good, but not as nice as the carada. i wish seymour and carada could get together and offer this service as it would be great for many of us in these situations. unless seymour can come up with a masking system of their own


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/19999538
> 
> 
> Pocoloco, nicely done! I suspect that locating the snaps on the fabric to match the existing locations on the frame was a hoot. Especially when you had to account for stretching the fabric, which doesn't stretch much. Enjoy your 2.35 AT!



Thanks. Actually, becuase the material was tilted, it had a bit of stretch to it which made it easier to match the snaps. But the stretchiness made it harder from a waves perspective.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony A.* /forum/post/20014027
> 
> 
> really nice work you did there. i had, years ago, contacted carada to see if they would install the snaps for me onto my xd material so i could use it on their masquerade system but they would not take the chance. i ended up building a masking system that works pretty good, but not as nice as the carada. i wish seymour and carada could get together and offer this service as it would be great for many of us in these situations. unless seymour can come up with a masking system of their own



Thanks. I thought the masquerade was compatible with other screens so you could technically use it with a Seymour screen/frame. I was hoping carada would come out with an at fabric but I too asked years ago and still nothing. There must a be technical reason why they don't have one. If I was starting out from scratch, I'd just buy the entire Seymour screen.


----------



## StevenC56

Just ordered my F105 Center Stage XD retractable!


----------



## SeveredDime

So I now have a nice sharpie mark on my screen which is kind of annoying. When I got the screen it had a label telling me which side to use. I thought I would check to see if there was any chance of the material being reversiable before I ordered a new one?


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeveredDime* /forum/post/20076803
> 
> 
> So I now have a nice sharpie mark on my screen which is kind of annoying. When I got the screen it had a label telling me which side to use. I thought I would check to see if there was any chance of the material being reversiable before I ordered a new one?



Yes the CenterStageXD is reversible, and both the video and audio specs are identical for both sides. The weave looks different, and there might be some other characteristic to note that I can't remember, but the other side is absolutely usable.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/20078035
> 
> 
> Yes the CenterStageXD is reversible, and both the video and audio specs are identical for both sides. The weave looks different, and there might be some other characteristic to note that I can't remember, but the other side is absolutely usable.



Ditto. IIRC, Chris says that the QC checks the front side (for blems, etc.) and that's the side that gets the sticker (that may or may not stick), and rolls the material with that side inward.


----------



## SeveredDime




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20079563
> 
> 
> Ditto. IIRC, Chris says that the QC checks the front side (for blems, etc.) and that's the side that gets the sticker (that may or may not stick), and rolls the material with that side inward.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/20078035
> 
> 
> Yes the CenterStageXD is reversible, and both the video and audio specs are identical for both sides. The weave looks different, and there might be some other characteristic to note that I can't remember, but the other side is absolutely usable.



Great news, thanks for the help guys!


----------



## cactusbob2

Did anybody ever get their Logitech Harmony working with the Seymour screen? If so could you share details. Thanks


----------



## cyrilp

I'm about to order some CenterStageXD XD to retrofit my screen research.


My projector is a JVC X7 (same as RS50). Do you know if i need to tilt the fabric to avoid moiré ?


----------



## StevenC56




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cyrilp* /forum/post/20095718
> 
> 
> I'm about to order some CenterStageXD XD to retrofit my screen research.
> 
> 
> My projector is a JVC X7 (same as RS50). Do you know if i need to tilt the fabric to avoid moiré ?



The only way to find out for sure is to order a 2' square sample from Seymour and test it out with your projector. Email Chris and he'll tell you how to order the sample.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cyrilp* /forum/post/20095718
> 
> 
> I'm about to order some CenterStageXD XD to retrofit my screen research.
> 
> 
> My projector is a JVC X7 (same as RS50). Do you know if i need to tilt the fabric to avoid moiré ?



To be safe you should tilt the fabric the maximum amount your screen size will allow! I am sure Chris will tell you this.



...Glenn


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cactusbob2* /forum/post/20091547
> 
> 
> Did anybody ever get their Logitech Harmony working with the Seymour screen? If so could you share details. Thanks



A customer with the screen had submitted the codes for them to add to the library. I talked with Logitech for a couple hours and they told me it takes time to get added to the database, but I'm not seeing any progress on it yet.


If you're unable to load the hex codes from our site directly, we do have the remotes for you to manually teach the harmony.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

If you have the hex code you can send in a request to Harmony tech support to have them added to your account. I done this with some speacial codes I wanted for my 5007 reciever, took a couple of days but they got them no my account. The more people that request them for their account the better chance that they will get going an actually get them in the data base.


i haven't tried it but I just found this also http://forums.logitech.com/t5/Harmon...lf/td-p/406224


----------



## cactusbob2

Thanks for the replies. I've asked Logitech to add the codes I think I'll give the other solution a try as well, as that may well be useful for other things.


----------



## cactusbob2

Well the website method to add codes only seems to allow the addition of one code per device. Any subsequent codes seem to replace the one done previously. Bit annoying really. Guess I should have ordered a remote when I got my screen.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cactusbob2* /forum/post/20106126
> 
> 
> Well the website method to add codes only seems to allow the addition of one code per device. Any subsequent codes seem to replace the one done previously. Bit annoying really. Guess I should have ordered a remote when I got my screen.



That plus the apparent wait (days!) that it takes to get a code added to your "account" so that it can be added to your actual remote (not to mention - but mentioning it anyway - that Chris Seymour is still waiting to get his screen's codes added to the standard Harmony database) speaks volumes about Logitech and the Harmony. Good hardware done in by lousy support.


----------



## cactusbob2

Well Logitech have added the codes to my account, and sure enough they are in there. I'm stuck working in Germany this week, so can't get home to install and test them.


I've also ordered a remote from Chris, so worse case I can learn them anyway.


----------



## StevenC56

My F105 arrived today! Hope to have it installed soon.


----------



## StevenC56

The screen is up and it's awesome. Chris Seymour is a class act. We highly recommend Seymour AV. If you are considering a less expensive AT screen from another company, do yourself a favor and spend a little extra to buy one from Seymour AV. It's a high quality product that is a much better value taking all things into consideration. In this case, you do get what you pay for.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *StevenC56* /forum/post/20181369
> 
> 
> The screen is up and it's awesome. Chris Seymour is a class act. We highly recommend Seymour AV. If you are considering a less expensive AT screen from another company, do yourself a favor and spend a little extra to buy one from Seymour AV. It's a high quality product that is a much better value taking all things into consideration. In this case, you do get what you pay for.





Steven,


Congrats on the new screen!










I am also possibly going with a Seymour AT screen and I would like to know your impressions of screen weave visibility from your viewing distances?










I believe in one of your prior post's that your viewing distances were 7.5 ft for the 1st row and 12.5 ft for your second row, is that correct?


Any other subjective experiences that you can touch on about your screen would be most welcome!



...Glenn


----------



## StevenC56




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/20182366
> 
> 
> Steven,
> 
> 
> Congrats on the new screen!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am also possibly going with a Seymour AT screen and I would like to know your impressions of screen weave visibility from your viewing distances?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in one of your prior post's that your viewing distances were 7.5 ft for the 1st row and 12.5 ft for your second row, is that correct?
> 
> 
> Any other subjective experiences that you can touch on about your screen would be most welcome!
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



Hey Glenn! From our front seating area @ 7-7.5' you can notice the screen weave mainly on light colored images like skies. If you are engrossed in the movie content and not focusing on the picture structure, it's not a distraction. From our main seating area @12-12.5', the picture is pure bliss and the weave is not noticeable to my wife and I at all. Hope that helps. I took your advice and angled my center channel speaker down slightly using 3 Auralex monitor isolation pads.


----------



## Billybobjimbob

Hi, anyone here ordered a custom sized seymour screen? Ive emailed Chris and my plan is to have the viewing area 140 inches wide and the height of a 120 inch wide 16:9/1.78:1 screen.


This would allow me to watch scope movies 140 inches wide, with a width mask to cover the extra height










i wouldnt compromise on the 16:9 screen as i could go 120 inches wide with full height, but would need two vertical masks to cover the extra width.


Anyone any thoughts on my method? Im also utilising an anamorphic lens


----------



## NinjaofDoom




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19978071
> 
> 
> You usually need to be closer than a 60 degree viewing angle before you have to move your head to see the edges of the screen - that's around a 2 x image height distance or closer.



I've yet to hear anyone else say this. Awesome though. I've been thinking I am somehow crazy lol.


I sit 10'6" back from a 140" wide (152diag) 2.40:1 screen. I can see both sides of the screen easily by moving my eyes only. Amazing theater experience







. Everything I read tells me that is very wrong. I'm using an Epson 8500UB on an eggshell wall (so the image is actually an even larger 16:9) and in ECO mode. Cant wait to see it on an AT screen.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Billybobjimbob* /forum/post/20207953
> 
> 
> Hi, anyone here ordered a custom sized seymour screen? Ive emailed Chris and my plan is to have the viewing area 140 inches wide and the height of a 120 inch wide 16:9/1.78:1 screen.
> 
> 
> This would allow me to watch scope movies 140 inches wide, with a width mask to cover the extra height
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i wouldnt compromise on the 16:9 screen as i could go 120 inches wide with full height, but would need two vertical masks to cover the extra width.
> 
> 
> Anyone any thoughts on my method? Im also utilising an anamorphic lens



Thought about it but decided that two way masking was much easier then 3 way. My screen is about exactly the say width as your. I think that my viewable height ended up 57" tall, that gives me 102" at 16:9 and 137" at 2.40 (my actuall screen is 144" wide). Personaly I think the 16:9 size is great and the 2.40 awsome, glad I didn't bother trying to do what you are.


----------



## sdlehman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Billybobjimbob* /forum/post/20207953
> 
> 
> Hi, anyone here ordered a custom sized seymour screen? Ive emailed Chris and my plan is to have the viewing area 140 inches wide and the height of a 120 inch wide 16:9/1.78:1 screen.
> 
> 
> This would allow me to watch scope movies 140 inches wide, with a width mask to cover the extra height
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i wouldnt compromise on the 16:9 screen as i could go 120 inches wide with full height, but would need two vertical masks to cover the extra width.
> 
> 
> Anyone any thoughts on my method? Im also utilising an anamorphic lens



I just bought that exact size and it is beautiful! I also bought the masking panels and they work great. Chris is great to work with. Screen came very fast. I am lighting it up with a JVC HD 250.


Stace


----------



## sdlehman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *StevenC56* /forum/post/20181369
> 
> 
> The screen is up and it's awesome. Chris Seymour is a class act. We highly recommend Seymour AV. If you are considering a less expensive AT screen from another company, do yourself a favor and spend a little extra to buy one from Seymour AV. It's a high quality product that is a much better value taking all things into consideration. In this case, you do get what you pay for.



I couldn't agree more. I was considering a DIY approach but decided to go with the Seymour frame. I am glad I did. This screen is first class!


Stace


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NinjaofDoom* /forum/post/20207971
> 
> 
> I've yet to hear anyone else say this. Awesome though. I've been thinking I am somehow crazy lol.
> 
> 
> I sit 10'6" back from a 140" wide (152diag) 2.40:1 screen. I can see both sides of the screen easily by moving my eyes only. Amazing theater experience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Everything I read tells me that is very wrong. I'm using an Epson 8500UB on an eggshell wall (so the image is actually an even larger 16:9) and in ECO mode. Cant wait to see it on an AT screen.



Hi,


Thanks for pointing that out - can't beat real world testing of stuff like that and I've just tried it myself and found you're absolutely correct and not crazy







I was going on a Dolby labs white paper which mentions a binocular field of view of 60 degrees:

http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/z...%20Picture.pdf 


I assume now that was for one eye rather than both, so it looks like 120 degrees is the correct figure - having just tried a very quick measuring exercise of my own I found I could see around 110 degrees, so 120 degrees with accurate testing looks correct. Probably greater if you have a broken nose.










Edit: Wikipedia also says 120 degrees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision 


That means of course that sitting closer than 2 x screen height with a scope screen without having to move your head (unless it feels more comfortable to do so) is easily doable.


Can't beat those kinds of seating distances for immersion, (but they might be a bit tiresome if it's a taller 16:9 or IMAX screen and the vertical viewi8ng angle is greater than 15 degrees).


Gary


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Billybobjimbob* /forum/post/20207953
> 
> 
> Hi, anyone here ordered a custom sized seymour screen? Ive emailed Chris and my plan is to have the viewing area 140 inches wide and the height of a 120 inch wide 16:9/1.78:1 screen.
> 
> 
> This would allow me to watch scope movies 140 inches wide, with a width mask to cover the extra height
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i wouldnt compromise on the 16:9 screen as i could go 120 inches wide with full height, but would need two vertical masks to cover the extra width.
> 
> *Anyone any thoughts on my method? Im also utilising an anamorphic lens*



If you don't mind extra masking and you want your 16:9 movies to be really big, then what you are doing is fine. Have you ever considered a CIH setup? If not, read on.


I have a 2.35 ratio 125" diagonal Seymour AT electric screen setup, and utilize an anamorphic lens as well. I use the more common CIH (constant image height) method of going back and forth between "scope" and 16:9 material. As the CIH name implies, the height of my movies always stays the same, 49" in my case. To go to a 16:9 ratio movie I switch my video scaler to normal (not expanding the image higher), and move my anamorphic lens back to normal (not stretching the image wider). With the 49" image height my 16:9 movies are 100" diagonal. With this method, there is no need for masking on the top or bottom of any movie format. I do have blank screen exposed on the sides when watching a 16:9 ratio movie or TV that could be masked, but it doesn't bother me unmasked, as my room is dark enough. I personally like having my "scope" movies larger than my 16:9 movies, as it maximizes their impact, and by having my image height constant, I have all formats of movies centered vertically at the optimum viewing height for my room.


I just wanted to be sure you have considered or are familiar with the pro's and con's of a CIH setup. If not go to this part of the AVS forum and they will tell you all you need to know. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117 I do wonder if you are you planning on "stretching" your "scope" movies taller with a separate scaler, or projector setting? If not you will lose some projector light output for scope movies.


----------



## Billybobjimbob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/20208008
> 
> 
> Thought about it but decided that two way masking was much easier then 3 way. My screen is about exactly the say width as your. I think that my viewable height ended up 57" tall, that gives me 102" at 16:9 and 137" at 2.40 (my actuall screen is 144" wide). Personaly I think the 16:9 size is great and the 2.40 awsome, glad I didn't bother trying to do what you are.



Hi







im not overly concerned with which method is easier to utilse, but i want the. most impact i can get from my screen. My previous screens (2screens in one casing) was 130inch wide cih set up. The scope image with my schneider lens was fantastic-but the non scope aspects lost a bit of the impact. An example-avatar would look fantastic on a 120inch + screen.


The masking system isnt complicated-you either have 2 masks at the sides for non scope or 2 masks for scope content (or even 1 oversized one). Im sure your 16:9 image is great, but id wager if you'd experienced one atleast a 120inches wide, then you'd class both your images as awsome


----------



## Billybobjimbob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdlehman* /forum/post/20208323
> 
> 
> I just bought that exact size and it is beautiful! I also bought the masking panels and they work great. Chris is great to work with. Screen came very fast. I am lighting it up with a JVC HD 250.
> 
> 
> Stace



thats fantastic Stace, do you have any pics you can post with the different masks? (i can pm you my email if you want to mail me).


Im using a jvc hd 750 and schneider m anamorphic lens


----------



## Billybobjimbob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/20208714
> 
> 
> If you don't mind extra masking and you want your 16:9 movies to be really big, then what you are doing is fine. Have you ever considered a CIH setup? If not, read on.
> 
> 
> I have a 2.35 ratio 125" diagonal Seymour AT electric screen setup, and utilize an anamorphic lens as well. I use the more common CIH (constant image height) method of going back and forth between "scope" and 16:9 material. As the CIH name implies, the height of my movies always stays the same, 49" in my case. To go to a 16:9 ratio movie I switch my video scaler to normal (not expanding the image higher), and move my anamorphic lens back to normal (not stretching the image wider). With the 49" image height my 16:9 movies are 100" diagonal. With this method, there is no need for masking on the top or bottom of any movie format. I do have blank screen exposed on the sides when watching a 16:9 ratio movie or TV that could be masked, but it doesn't bother me unmasked, as my room is dark enough. I personally like having my "scope" movies larger than my 16:9 movies, as it maximizes their impact, and by having my image height constant, I have all formats of movies centered vertically at the optimum viewing height for my room.
> 
> 
> I just wanted to be sure you have considered or are familiar with the pro's and con's of a CIH setup. If not go to this part of the AVS forum and they will tell you all you need to know. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117 I do wonder if you are you planning on "stretching" your "scope" movies taller with a separate scaler, or projector setting? If not you will lose some projector light output for scope movies.



Hi mlbrand,


thankyou for taking the time to post such a detailed reply, its much appreciated. I actually had a cih setup for the last 14 months or so. Well i had a screenline galieleo screen which houses two screens in one casing for cih. One screen is scope the other is the same height but a true 16:9.


like most others in these forums,I love my movie watching. But i have to say i think at home, the impact utilising cih with non scope material, can be decreased. Something like avatar in scope would be awsome, but i found with the cih, it wasnt as engrossing-and that was with a 2.5m wide screen. Im sure the extra half a metre width and more so the height will have more of an impact( ive tried projecting onto the wall and it looks ace).


Its nice to have thx, dolby or other guidelines-but to me they are that. Their intent is good, but i like letting my own eyes and ears judge. Gary often says when using cih if non scope looks a bit small-pull the seating forward! Unfortunately that isnt always practicable. Due to space constraints and the technical ability of the pj, ciw isnt possible in my room, if i however had the room, then id happily keep an open mind and try that route. As it stands, i think this is my best opportunity to enjoy both scope and non scope material.


Asif


----------



## NinjaofDoom




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20208668
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing that out - can't beat real world testing of stuff like that and I've just tried it myself and found you're absolutely correct and not crazy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was going on a Dolby labs white paper which mentions a binocular field of view of 60 degrees:
> 
> 
> Can't beat those kinds of seating distances for immersion, (but they might be a bit tiresome if it's a taller 16:9 or IMAX screen and the vertical viewi8ng angle is greater than 15 degrees).
> 
> 
> Gary



So I'm not the only one! Yea, my measurements show exactly 60 degrees viewing angle from the front row (and still an excellent picture from the back).

I will have the screen width to ideally space my LCRs to my seating as well.


I suppose the only drawback is you really need to stick to Blu Rays/HD content to prevent the fuzzy picture that chriscmore warns about. Perhaps my eyes are too untrained but 'V for Vendetta' looked sharp last night










Completely agree on the 16:9. We started with a plan for a 16:9 screen, but when you sit 10'6" back from a similarly sized screen and try to watch something like Avatar, it WAS really uncomfortable. The lack of height in an otherwise 12' wide screen makes an ENORMOUS difference in comfort. I was thinking 140" wide would be a bit too much (just under 80% of my wall width) but its actually quite epic, with no discomfort.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

A lot of the recommended viewing angles from the likes of SMPTE, Fox etc are based on immersion/visual acuity and image quality - grain and camera mechanics were a limiting factor for film for example. As you rightly say, if you watch only good quality HD stuff then the likes of THXs 2.4 x screen height works well, but if you watch SD material and the source isn't as good as it could be, it can look quite soft or the artefacts distracting.


Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Billybobjimbob* /forum/post/20211288
> 
> 
> Its nice to have thx, dolby or other guidelines-but to me they are that. Their intent is good, but i like letting my own eyes and ears judge. Gary often says when using cih if non scope looks a bit small-pull the seating forward! Unfortunately that isnt always practicable. Due to space constraints and the technical ability of the pj, ciw isnt possible in my room, if i however had the room, then id happily keep an open mind and try that route. As it stands, i think this is my best opportunity to enjoy both scope and non scope material.
> 
> 
> Asif



A good alternative to CIH if you can't or don't like your seating closer for that set up, is constant image area or the two screen approach. That way you can have each image size closer to what you prefer without moving your seats.


Rich H has a very flexible set up which gives him all the sizes he wants including something larger for IMAX type presentations.


Gary


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Billybobjimbob* /forum/post/20211288
> 
> 
> Hi mlbrand,
> 
> 
> thankyou for taking the time to post such a detailed reply, its much appreciated. I actually had a cih setup for the last 14 months or so. Well i had a screenline galieleo screen which houses two screens in one casing for cih. One screen is scope the other is the same height but a true 16:9.
> 
> 
> like most others in these forums,I love my movie watching. But i have to say i think at home, the impact utilising cih with non scope material, can be decreased. Something like avatar in scope would be awsome, but i found with the cih, it wasnt as engrossing-and that was with a 2.5m wide screen. Im sure the extra half a metre width and more so the height will have more of an impact( ive tried projecting onto the wall and it looks ace).
> 
> 
> Its nice to have thx, dolby or other guidelines-but to me they are that. Their intent is good, but i like letting my own eyes and ears judge. Gary often says when using cih if non scope looks a bit small-pull the seating forward! Unfortunately that isnt always practicable. Due to space constraints and the technical ability of the pj, ciw isnt possible in my room, if i however had the room, then id happily keep an open mind and try that route. As it stands, i think this is my best opportunity to enjoy both scope and non scope material.
> 
> 
> Asif



Billybobjimbob,


It sounds like you are doing what works best for you, which is exactly how you should do it. I am actually limited in screen height in my room, so CIH works best for me, but I know it's not best for everyone. Enjoy your setup!


----------



## Billybobjimbob

Thanks for that Mlbrand







im just waiting to hear back from Chris now so i can sort the detail and get it ordered!


----------



## Billybobjimbob

Well thanks to Chris and his team, my screen is on its way-hopefully it will land early next week-cant wait to get my hands on it


----------



## premiertrussman

Hey all,


Couple questions for you experts out there.


My original plan was to purchase a panny pt-ae4000u and project onto a 120" DIY 2.35 screen using center stage material. However, due to budget issues...the ae4000 is no longer in the picture.


Its looking like now I'll be ending up with the pt-ax200u. The Specs are HERE . Anyone see a problem with 120" 2.35 center stage screen and this projector? The throw distance should be about 15.5", the first row, screen to eyeballs, is between 9 and 10 feet.


Thanks in advance!


*Edit*


I've re measure my layout and i mis remembered, my first row is actually about 8 feet to the eyeballs, then 15 to the second row.


----------



## doublewing11

Looking at mating the Seymour XD with the Carada CIH masking..................trying to figure out how to best configure the two products from two different manufacturers.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *doublewing11* /forum/post/20306478
> 
> 
> Looking at mating the Seymour XD with the Carada CIH masking..................trying to figure out how to best configure the two products from two different manufacturers.



You can specify with us any custom image/inside frame dimension to the 0.1" resolution. So, I'd recommend calling David and Rex and specing out the masking system first to what you want. Then, they'll tell you what the image dimensions need to be for us.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/20308352
> 
> 
> You can specify with us any custom image/inside frame dimension to the 0.1" resolution. So, I'd recommend calling David and Rex and specing out the masking system first to what you want. Then, they'll tell you what the image dimensions need to be for us.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks.........makes sense.


----------



## zacjones

We recently acquired a Center Stage XD in the 120" wide 2.40:1 version from fellow avs forum member locally. That wasn't really in the budget, but it was too good to pass up as I know the CFO would never have approved a new screen at new prices, as we already had a perfectly functional 120" Da-Lite Hi Power screen. I really wanted an AT screen though, and can't believe I actually got one! Our theater is ready to go except for acoustic treatments and a projector.


So our projector budget took a huge hit, but that's OK. To me a good screen is a better investment than a good projector, as a good screen will still be considered a good screen for many years, while we all know how we feel about projectors even two years after we buy them...


So how would you rate these entry level 1080p projectors from best to worst for mating with this screen? The theater has charcoal gray walls and ceiling, and very good light control. We'll eventually spring for a Panasonic AE5000U if it ever comes out, but funds are tight right now and we need to get the theater up and running until then.


Optoma HD20

Mitsubishi HC4000

Viewsonic Pro8200


I know the Epson 8350 is going to be better than all these, but that's half again what these projectors cost.


Thanks. Zac.


----------



## Spirit84

I am very new to this hobby, so be gentle!!

I am very interested in a Seymour screen because I will be using my center channel behind the screen.

What I am very new at is trying to determine the following:
*1: what size screen to buy - it needs to be motorized from a ceiling mount

2: how far back the projector needs to be mounted on the ceiling*

Here are my variables:

Room dimensions:

7'H x 14.5'W x 24'L

I would like to sit about 14-15 feet from the screen.

The projector that I am looking at is a model that I think is only available in Canada:

Vivitek H5085 (DLP)

Here are some of the specs with the standard lens:

1800 lumens and 35,000:1 contrast ratio

Throw Ratio: 1.54 to 1.93:1 (Distance/Width)

Image Size Diaganol: 37" to 300" (0.9 to 7.6 m)

Projection Distance: 4' to 30' (1.2 to 9.1 m)

Projection Lens: F=2.5- 3.1, f=28.5 - 42.75 mm

Keystone Correction: ±15ºVertical

Lens Shift Range: Vertical:±10%, Horizontal: -40% to +120%


If there is a reason that this projector will not work properly with the Seymour screen please advise. Otherwise, I could really use your help.


----------



## SteveHorn

A few quick thoughts:

Are you interested in a "scope" (2.35 or equiv.) aspect ratio (AR)? What are your viewing habits (film, HDTV, sports...?). A 'scope screen, especially an acoustic transparent (AT) scope screen, adds tremendously to the "movie theatre experience". Your room size would seem to allow for a wider viewing angle.


Along that line of thought, check your planned projector's zoom capabilities. Do some research at projectorcentral.com and the calculator there to see if your chosen PJ can light up a screen at the throw distance you plan, versus the size and AR of the screen.


You should factor in the light control in your room: Bat cave, or a room with windows and daylight viewing habits.


All of the above issues are not specific to Seymour screens; you should resolve these questions before jumping into any screen/projector combination. That said, Seymour screens are an excellent value and a high quality product with first class customer support.


----------



## chriscmore

Spirit - If you're planning on sitting 14-15 feet back, I'd recommend the larger end of the retractable screen size range, from 110" wide to 120" wide. That would get you in the sweet spot for 16:9 screens, from 36 to 40 degree viewing angle. Of course, adjust to the room or requirements of the installation (e.g. L/R speakers, walls) and personal taste. Also, the more adjustment you have available in your seating distance, the easier it is to dial things over time.


Finally, the safest bet is to hang a sheet and throw a temporary image with the new projector. Nothing beats a few hours of experience, and a big advantage of AT screens is that you can scale your audio and video independently for best practice all around.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## microsup

Question to Chris, or any one who knows. Is there is a way to wash screen fabric. Lets say in a chance you have it marked with children dirty hands or something else like coke drops. After wash will it shrink, can I iron it. Or Dry clean? How easy to clean it and what is the best way?


----------



## Spirit84




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20339957
> 
> 
> A few quick thoughts:
> 
> Are you interested in a "scope" (2.35 or equiv.) aspect ratio (AR)? What are your viewing habits (film, HDTV, sports...?). A 'scope screen, especially an acoustic transparent (AT) scope screen, adds tremendously to the "movie theatre experience". Your room size would seem to allow for a wider viewing angle.
> 
> 
> Along that line of thought, check your planned projector's zoom capabilities. Do some research at projectorcentral.com and the calculator there to see if your chosen PJ can light up a screen at the throw distance you plan, versus the size and AR of the screen.
> 
> 
> You should factor in the light control in your room: Bat cave, or a room with windows and daylight viewing habits.
> 
> 
> All of the above issues are not specific to Seymour screens; you should resolve these questions before jumping into any screen/projector combination. That said, Seymour screens are an excellent value and a high quality product with first class customer support.



Thanks for responding:

No - I am not interested in a "scope". I prefer 16x9. I watch a lot of sports and movies but I don't want to get into the anamorphic lens route.

Room: will be like a bat cave - absoultely no windows and I planning to have wall scones on the side walls controlled by a dimmer.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/20340294
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Finally, the safest bet is to hang a sheet and throw a temporary image with the new projector. Nothing beats a few hours of experience, and a big advantage of AT screens is that you can scale your audio and video independently for best practice all around.Chris



Ditto that. Go to Hancock/Joann Fabrics and get a few yds of white polyester. Comes in 54" widths as I recall. Size it to your liking (16:9 or whatever), stretch it/hang it over your center channel and Bob's your uncle. BTW, You don't HAVE to go with an A-Lens for scope. Many in the CIH world use the zoom method to blow out the pix to the proper width. The letterbox bars get lost in the screen surround. Just a thought.


----------



## Spirit84

I know that sometimes when you walk into an Audio/Video retailer you have to take what the sales people tell you with a large grain of salt. Nevertheless, this is what happened today. I was very impressed with a Runco LS5 that I saw today but when I mentioned that I would be buying a AT screen from a company called Seymour, the salesman cautioned that I will probably experience a rainbow effect because of the perforations in the screen. I have never experienced this "rainbow effect" during the few times that I have been in the store but it has me a bit nervous. I don't know much about this effect but would aprpeciate the experts comments.

I plan on sitting 15 feet from the screen. Based on Chris's recommendations I will probably purchase a screen between 110 and 120 feet wide.

Is this an issue?


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Spirit84* /forum/post/20343410
> 
> 
> I know that sometimes when you walk into an Audio/Video retailer you have to take what the sales people tell you with a large grain of salt. Nevertheless, this is what happened today. I was very impressed with a Runco LS5 that I saw today but when I mentioned that I would be buying a AT screen from a company called Seymour, the salesman cautioned that I will probably experience a rainbow effect because of the perforations in the screen. I have never experienced this "rainbow effect" during the few times that I have been in the store but it has me a bit nervous. I don't know much about this effect but would aprpeciate the experts comments.
> 
> I plan on sitting 15 feet from the screen. Based on Chris's recommendations I will probably purchase a screen between 110 and 120 feet wide.
> 
> Is this an issue?



First of all, the Runco LS-5 is an excellent projector.........sharp, colors that pop...........but not on a 110-120 ft wide screen!!!!!










You should have asked the dealer how he plans on dealing with inferior audio due to L/R speakers being in the corner and the center well below ear level. The sound stage would be lacking, not to mention acoustic anomalies associated with a reflective screen. By going with a weave AT screen, you lose maybe 

BTW, the dealer was referring to moire.......which can be eliminated by proper rotation of the material............besides, the Seymour screen is a weave, not a perf. I'd run from that dealer as fast as you can..........I've eliminated many CI's due to similar horsepucky!!!


----------



## Spirit84




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *doublewing11* /forum/post/20343548
> 
> 
> First of all, the Runco LS-5 is an excellent projector.........sharp, colors that pop...........but not on a 110-120 ft wide screen!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should have asked the dealer how he plans on dealing with inferior audio due to L/R speakers being in the corner and the center well below ear level. The sound stage would be lacking, not to mention acoustic anomalies associated with a reflective screen. By going with a weave AT screen, you lose maybe
> 
> BTW, the dealer was referring to moire.......which can be eliminated by proper rotation of the material............besides, the Seymour screen is a weave, not a perf. I'd run from that dealer as fast as you can..........I've eliminated many CI's due to similar horsepucky!!!



Doublewing:

Thank you for responding and pardon my newbie ignorance!

What do you mean that the Runco is not comatible with a 110-120 ft wide screen? What is the problem with that? I have not been told this before. Is there info somewhere that discusses this issue.


----------



## deromax

Spirit84, we question the screen size you mentionned (two times), because 120 feet doesn't typically fit in a normal house!










About dealers "advices", I say decide on what product you want, make and model, by reading on the web, then go to the store and purchase it. If not available at one place, go elsewhere right on. Don't let them convince you onto something else. Dismiss the advices about stuff they don't sell. You were steered away from an AT screen, most probably because they don't carry any AT screens.


One way to conveniently bypass the annoying sellers is purchasing on the web!


----------



## Spirit84

My bad! Shoot - I am a real maroon!!

OK - so at 110 to 120 *INCHES* is the Runco a good choice?

Does it have enough light output in a very dark room? Kind of like a bat cave if necessary.


----------



## Spirit84

I am wondering if the experts can give me a hand please and confirm my thinking:

My ceiling height is 7 feet.

My seating position will be 15 feet head to screen on a regular leather couch.

I would like to order the Seymour retractable 16x9 screen which will be mounted on a wood stud on the ceiling away from the wall.

My centre speaker is (unfortunately) *horizontal*.

Chris has told me that a good position to mount the speaker would be about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way from the floor which would be close to ear level. I am trying to see if I can still install a 65" Plasma above the speaker.

So here are the calculations:

Total height: 84 inches

1/3 from the floor: 28 inches

Height of speaker: 9 inches

Remaining room to top: 47 inches

Height of plasma: 38 inches

Top of plasma to ceil: 9 inches

Do you think that the Plasma will be in a decent position for viewing from 15 feet?


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Spirit84* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My bad! Shoot - I am a real maroon!!
> 
> OK - so at 110 to 120 INCHES is the Runco a good choice?
> 
> Does it have enough light output in a very dark room? Kind of like a bat cave if necessary.



It should be fine. I am running a far inferior 720p DLP projector on a similar sized Center Stage XD screen and it looks fantastic. Like was said above, as long as you order the screen with the material tilted there will be no moire (rainbows).


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Spirit84* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am wondering if the experts can give me a hand please and confirm my thinking:
> 
> My ceiling height is 7 feet.
> 
> My seating position will be 15 feet head to screen on a regular leather couch.
> 
> I would like to order the Seymour retractable 16x9 screen which will be mounted on a wood stud on the ceiling away from the wall.
> 
> My centre speaker is (unfortunately) horizontal.
> 
> Chris has told me that a good position to mount the speaker would be about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way from the floor which would be close to ear level. I am trying to see if I can still install a 65" Plasma above the speaker.
> 
> So here are the calculations:
> 
> Total height: 84 inches
> 
> 1/3 from the floor: 28 inches
> 
> Height of speaker: 9 inches
> 
> Remaining room to top: 47 inches
> 
> Height of plasma: 38 inches
> 
> Top of plasma to ceil: 9 inches
> 
> Do you think that the Plasma will be in a decent position for viewing from 15 feet?



It is probably not ideal, but I think that 15 feet away you can probably get away with it. I would frame it out on the wall with masking tape and see how it feels from your seating position to be sure. You may want to also try the 1/4 of the distance from the floor and see which you like better.


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Spirit84* /forum/post/20343706
> 
> 
> My bad! Shoot - I am a real maroon!!
> 
> OK - so at 110 to 120 *INCHES* is the Runco a good choice?
> 
> Does it have enough light output in a very dark room? Kind of like a bat cave if necessary.



The LS-5 will be perfect for a screen that size............120 inches wide is about MAX for the projector.


Some people here comment about products and have never seen them in person.......beware. I prefer DLP and have seen the Runco LS-5 in the flesh........outstanding projector and IMHO is the best projector choice


----------



## Spirit84




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *doublewing11* /forum/post/20344829
> 
> 
> The LS-5 will be perfect for a screen that size............120 inches wide is about MAX for the projector.
> 
> 
> Some people here comment about products and have never seen them in person.......beware. I prefer DLP and have seen the Runco LS-5 in the flesh........outstanding projector and IMHO is the best projector choice


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Spirit84* /forum/post/20345205
> 
> 
> Doublewing:
> 
> thank you for the advice - you are right - some people offer opinions not having seen a projector in action!
> 
> You have - so I take your advice very seriously!!
> 
> Because I am really new to this - can you teach (explain) to me why screen cannot exceed 120" when using the LS5.
> 
> Also, is the LS3 as good a choice - I notice that the LS3 doesn't have horizontal lens shift but I don't even know what that means of it matters.
> 
> I assume that you believe that this so-called Rainbow effect will not be an issue on Chris's screen.



LS-3 and LS-5 are really the same machine with exception of a few features which horizontal lens shift is one. Len shift whether horizontal or vertical allow installation flexibility........if you are installing yourself, you need as much flexibility as possible. Proper placement of the projector can eliminate projection problems, but I for one would never own a projector without horizontal and vertical lens shift.


Don't worry about moire..............I'd worry more about why your sound stinks rather than the fear of moire! IMHO, audio is the most important aspect of movie watching............once again, my opinion and you have to decide for yourself.


120" wide 1.78 screen for the LS-5 is the max manufacture recommended screen size for a reason. Sure, your picture might look great at first, but after 200 hours the lumens degrade quite significantly. A dull image is due to a lack of lumen output............make sure whatever projector you decide upon, you have ample light output as the bulb dims. The biggest problem most posters run into is having too big a screen for their projector and are not happy with their image as the bulb ages............just check out the current JVC threads.


I find movies at the theater quite dim...........so I've chosen to go the 3 chip DLP route with CIH screen. I prefer 18-20 lumens for 2.37 (all lights off), and 30-40 lumens on a 1.78 screen (all lights on). Tough to find a projector to handle those parameters.............3 chip is the only way for me.


Another fact you might consider with screen and projector selection is contrast, ie. bright/dark scenes..........the LS-5 has great blacks for DLP! Once again...........visit store fronts and find out for yourself ie. don't listen to anybody, including me!


----------



## mcfoo

Moire is caused by optical interference between pixel structure and screen weave, and can ruin a picture. Rainbow effect is caused by the speed of the color wheel and is seen by some, but not all people.


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mcfoo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Moire is caused by optical interference between pixel structure and screen weave, and can ruin a picture. Rainbow effect is caused by the speed of the color wheel and is seen by some, but not all people.



Yes. When I mentioned them together above I was referring to the the they guy at the store saying that the AT screen would cause rainbows which of course makes no sense, so someone figured that he must be referring to moire.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *microsup* /forum/post/20340345
> 
> 
> Question to Chris, or any one who knows. Is there is a way to wash screen fabric. Lets say in a chance you have it marked with children dirty hands or something else like coke drops. After wash will it shrink, can I iron it. Or Dry clean? How easy to clean it and what is the best way?



You can easily wash the screen fabric with mild cleaners and soap and water. The vinyl extrusion over the threads means it won't care about water, however vinyl doesn't like heat or folding. So if the common vacuum brush maintenence doesn't clean what you need, spot cleaning is easy.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## microsup




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> You can easily wash the screen fabric with mild cleaners and soap and water. The vinyl extrusion over the threads means it won't care about water, however vinyl doesn't like heat or folding. So if the common vacuum brush maintenence doesn't clean what you need, spot cleaning is easy.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris. By the way got your sample, gonna test it tonight. I noticed that one side of the fabric much smoother then other. Is there a difference which one is a face one?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *microsup* /forum/post/20357096
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris. By the way got your sample, gonna test it tonight. I noticed that one side of the fabric much smoother then other. Is there a difference which one is a face one?



Both sides spec the same, so you can use whichever side you prefer. However, we prefer the less-smooth side for its performance in retractables. For fixed and DIY, we put that side on the inside surface of the roll so we can inspect for blemishes.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Spirit84

Because I am so new to this I am really having some issues figuring out what to do.

Here is my situation:

My ceiling height is 7 feet (84").

My room width is 14 feet (168")

Unfortunately there is an I-Beam obstruction 10" from the top of the ceiling:

84-10 = 74" open space

If I build a frame around the I-beam and then build another matching box frame on the other side then I could hang a retractable screen from the frame.

I was thinking about a 110" inch screen - 16x9:

Total height of screen including case: 67.4"

So: 74 - 67.4 = 6.6" from the bottom of the screen to the floor.

I will be sitting 15-16 feet from the screen on one level only.

Is this too low to the floor?

Alternatively, if I go for a 2.35-1 the numbers would be as follows:

74 - 52.6 = 21.4" to the floor

What concerns me about the 2.35 screen is that becasue I am new to this I am not sure how regular 16x9 TV will appear on the screen. Any comments would really help.

Also; and this one I am really not sure about, where does the subject about curved screens come into the discussion with a retractable screen. Is this an issue?

Also, because I would be hanging the screen from a boxed wooden frame could this cause some vibration/rattling issues. I am only thinking about this because I am not hanging from a solid ceiling joist.

I hope I have made all this clear.


----------



## deromax

Spirit84, I'd go with a 2.35 screen as you are height limited. 16:9 content will use the center part of the screen, pillar-boxed. That is, with black space on both sides of the actual image. In a light-controled room this is a non-issue.


To facilitate the use of a 2.35 screen, I'd recommand a projector with a lens memory system, like the Panasonic PT-AE4000.


To my knowledge, curved screen cannot be had in a retractable form. If this is a dedicated entertainment space, a fixed screen should be fine!


Good luck


----------



## NicksHitachi

so is everyone using the "rough" side?


----------



## premiertrussman

Whom or where did i need to contact at seymour av to get a small sample of the XD material?


----------



## StevenC56




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *premiertrussman* /forum/post/20399091
> 
> 
> Whom or where did i need to contact at seymour av to get a small sample of the XD material?


 [email protected]


----------



## premiertrussman

 thx


----------



## microsup




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NicksHitachi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> so is everyone using the "rough" side?



As Chris answered to my question that they use smooth for fixed and rough for retractable.


----------



## microsup




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *microsup* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> As Chris answered to my question that they use smooth for fixed and rough for retractable.



I tried it on test sample and saw no difference. The only what I saw is a moire but when I rotate a sample I found that moire dissapears after certain angle.


----------



## NicksHitachi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *microsup* /forum/post/20400808
> 
> 
> I tried it on test sample and saw no difference. The only what I saw is a moire but when I rotate a sample I found that moire dissapears after certain angle.



Hopefully that angle is less than 20.....


----------



## mutheater

I purchased a fixed frame XD screen from Chris a few months ago to use with my Epson 8350. I love the screen...my first row of seats is about 11-12 ft from the screen and the weave is not noticeable.


Prior to getting the XD screen, I purchased a less expensive brand from Amazon because I didn't know much about screens at the time and they had a easy return policy. Ugh, the pattern in the AT fabric was visible for 18 ft away so it was returned.


I have to say that everything from the packaging, sturdiness of the frame, ease of assemble and picture quality on the XD was superior.


If you are considering an AT screen, I think you will be happy with the XD and find Chris provides great customer service....even if you have a 1,000 questions like I did. ;-)


----------



## doublewing11

Visited SeymourAV website and noticed curved screens are now offered! Great!!!!


I would assume that custom curvature is an option....ie. matching radius to projector throw and quirks with specific machines.


In addition, manual masking panels are offered to match the curved screen............I wonder how much "barrel" 1.78 artifact is viewable using this alternative masking option. Can the manual panels be made AT........how much debbers are lost using the masking panels? Questions I ponder........


Have to research the throw distances and pincushion artifacts and of course barrel effect in 1.78........


----------



## NicksHitachi

finished mounting my XD material to my DIY frame it looks awesome! I will say it's harder than I thought it would be to get the screen taught without any bunching or wrinkles.....


One question: the material is tight enough to pull the wrinkles out, I tightened it as much as I could with the attachment method I chose. I used the screen track and spline attachment method. The subs are behind an acoustically transparent wall, will I notice the screen material waving at all with the subs behind there playing?


----------



## yourtoys7

That looks awesome, what size is the screen?


----------



## NicksHitachi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yourtoys7* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That looks awesome, what size is the screen?



Thanks!


120" diag 2.37. Oh, almost forgot, the best suggestion I almost didn't take was letting them cut it on the 20 deg angle. if it weren't already cut I don't know if I would have been so successful.


----------



## uscmatt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *doublewing11* /forum/post/20440068
> 
> 
> Visited SeymourAV website and noticed curved screens are now offered! Great!!!!
> 
> 
> I would assume that custom curvature is an option....ie. matching radius to projector throw and quirks with specific machines.
> 
> 
> In addition, manual masking panels are offered to match the curved screen............I wonder how much "barrel" 1.78 artifact is viewable using this alternative masking option. Can the manual panels be made AT........how much debbers are lost using the masking panels? Questions I ponder........
> 
> 
> Have to research the throw distances and pincushion artifacts and of course barrel effect in 1.78........



For the flat screens, and I'm assuming the curved screens as well, there are AT manual masking panels available. You can choose between 2 widths for the inner velvet border which is not AT. The rest of the panel only attenuates 0.5 to 1.0 dB.


As to the curved screen, you'll want to seek advice from the maker of the A-lens you choose with regards to which PJ you have and your throw.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NicksHitachi* /forum/post/20440387
> 
> 
> One question: ...The subs are behind an acoustically transparent wall, will I notice the screen material waving at all with the subs behind there playing?



The only way you'd be able to move the screen is either placing it right over a high airflow port, or shaking the frame or wall it's attached to. We have some crazy amounts of subbage behind the screen - current record I think is 17.6kW of man-sized cabinets - and the only reports of screen movement I've heard of is when the whole place is shaking. In my experience, usually the easiest part to shake is the projector mount since even small vibrations cause visible image movement.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *uscmatt99* /forum/post/20442939
> 
> 
> For the flat screens, and I'm assuming the curved screens as well, there are AT manual masking panels available. You can choose between 2 widths for the inner velvet border which is not AT. The rest of the panel only attenuates 0.5 to 1.0 dB.
> 
> 
> As to the curved screen, you'll want to seek advice from the maker of the A-lens you choose with regards to which PJ you have and your throw.



Two widths? This is a new one for me............


Screen decisions will have to wait until projector is selected along with throw calculations.............


Planning on using an Isco III with RUNCO LS-10i...........if the Digital Projection Highlite 260 HC new pricing is in fact better than the RUNCO, I'll go that route.


----------



## NicksHitachi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> The only way you'd be able to move the screen is either placing it right over a high airflow port, or shaking the frame or wall it's attached to. We have some crazy amounts of subbage behind the screen - current record I think is 17.6kW of man-sized cabinets - and the only reports of screen movement I've heard of is when the whole place is shaking. In my experience, usually the easiest part to shake is the projector mount since even small vibrations cause visible image movement.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Chris,


thanks for all your help right through this thing! Respect!


How about the sub drivers themselves, how much breathing room do they need, or am I worrying about a nonissue?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NicksHitachi* /forum/post/20446668
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> thanks for all your help right through this thing! Respect!
> 
> 
> How about the sub drivers themselves, how much breathing room do they need, or am I worrying about a nonissue?



I'd give them at least a few inches of breathing room to make sure there isn't an air permeability issue causing the fabric to move, like with a port. But frequency wise, the screen would have zero effect on bass at any volume.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## airliner

Hi all, I know it can be a little late to ask, I bought 11" of the original center stage (98" height)2 years ago, and I'm building my screen in the next days.

The amount of fabric I ordered from screen was in order to build a 2:35 set up, but at the moment I am going 16/9, so I have the possibility to increase the tilt of the screen, is the suggested 15deg the best angle or the more you angle the more you get result? Txs Marco.


----------



## SteveHorn

I'm not sure how critical the actual angle is. In some cases, tilt is not even necessary - depends on the projector, view distance and eyesight. But, if you have the fabric, why not tilt it? The typical tilt angle, based on other posts here, is in the neighborhood of 20 degrees. I doubt that tilting more would make much if any difference. But that's just my opinion, and all of the above applies to the the current XD fabric and may not apply to any earlier fabric. Maybe Chris can comment.


----------



## Benito Joaquin

As Steve said, since you have all the pieces in place i'd recommend you do some testing! Note that tilting too much can also have a negative effect on the screen. Once you hit that sweet spot, if you keep going you will be going back to slight moire issues.


benito


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *uscmatt99* /forum/post/20442939
> 
> 
> For the flat screens, and I'm assuming the curved screens as well, there are AT manual masking panels available. You can choose between 2 widths for the inner velvet border which is not AT. The rest of the panel only attenuates 0.5 to 1.0 dB.
> 
> 
> As to the curved screen, you'll want to seek advice from the maker of the A-lens you choose with regards to which PJ you have and your throw.



Chris has posted some additional info on the curved screen offering. Full dimensions as well as AR (2.37) and radius (40').


----------



## hehateme

My room dimensions are 25 x 16'6". Height is 8'9".

I have a 3 feet deep false wall so the actual room dimension is 22 feet.

I also have soffits that take up 13 inches so the actual height I have to work with is 92 inches.


I am about to order 130 Inch wide 2.37 screen from Chris.

My seating distance will be 15 feet. My room is light controlled with brown walls and ceiling. The soffits are black.


I will be watching movies 70% and sports 30% of time.

This gives me viewing angle of 35 degrees for 16:9 content

and 40 degree for 2.35 content.


I picked up white muslin from Joanna fabric. I installed a 130 wide and 55 high screen.


My projector is BenQ W6000. I watch 2.35 content and it looked great on the temp screen.


However the size of 16:9 was too small at my seating distance. A 16:9 screen was only 98 inch wide.

I increased the height of the fabric to 60 inches and my 16:9 content looked better.


As a result of that I am considering 130 wide and 60 inch high screen. This will give about about 107 inch wide 16:9 screen.


I do realize that I will have white bars when I watch 16:9 and 2.35 content but that does not bother me. I can always come up with a masking solution if this is a problem.


I will only have 1 row seating.

I will position the screen 24 inches from bottom.












I wanted to run my scenario by you folks before I placed my order. I have never had a projector before and I have done a couple of hours of viewing on my temp screen to make sure that screen size works for me. However I don't have the actual screen yet and my projector was placed on a table for my testing and it will be ceiling mounted in future.


Let me know if you have any suggestions for me.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

Why not just make the scree wider? I have a 56-1/2" tall screen that is 144" wide. From there I mask down to what ever sive I need.


2.35 = 133x56-1/2

1.78 = 100-1/2x56-1/2


So I would go with a 144x60 screen if I were you. Actually that is the size of my screen but the usefull height is only 56.5 after my wall treatements. So I can get a 144x56.5 screen. Also most movies seem to fit better at 2.4 then 2.35, even movies listed as 2.35 actaully mask out better at 2.4


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Well, you already know my opinion.










Do it!


(hope my frame and material come soon)


----------



## hehateme

Brad,


Are you buying the fininshed screen or DIY?


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hehateme* /forum/post/20638151
> 
> 
> Brad,
> 
> 
> Are you buying the finished screen or DIY?



Ordered a custom frame from Jamestown, and the material from Seymour - sort of middle ground between finished screen and DIY.


----------



## jpeter1093

Brad, how will you be attaching the screen material to the Jamestown frame? Also, how did you order it...just tell Jamestown the diagonal size you wanted and they quoted you a price?


----------



## hehateme

Brad,


I ordered 130 inch wide and 60 inch high screen today.

I also had them install magnets in the frame.

If the white bars bother me I will buy masking panels. Masking panels use magnets to attach to the screen.


Now the countdown to getting the screen begins.


Thanks


----------



## elmalloc

white bars? bad decision...


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/20637289
> 
> 
> Why not just make the scree wider? I have a 56-1/2" tall screen that is 144" wide. From there I mask down to what ever sive I need.
> 
> 
> 2.35 = 133x56-1/2
> 
> 1.78 = 100-1/2x56-1/2
> 
> 
> So I would go with a 144x60 screen if I were you. Actually that is the size of my screen but the usefull height is only 56.5 after my wall treatements. So I can get a 144x56.5 screen. Also most movies seem to fit better at 2.4 then 2.35, even movies listed as 2.35 actaully mask out better at 2.4



Evil minds think alike!










I was going to say the same thing, but stopped due to redundancy.


I'm going 144" X 61" (2.37) CIH.......masking down to 108" X 61".............such a perfect size...........but then again, I'm gonna use a 3 chip. The OP will be using the Ben-q 6000.............that'll do.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/20640515
> 
> 
> white bars? bad decision...



Oops black bars - yeah white bars wouldn't be so nice


----------



## hehateme

I wrote white bars because the screen is white.

In a dark room if this will not look good I will buy black masking panels. They are not too expensive and attach with the help of magnets.


Brad,

How were you planning on avoiding the white area in the screen?

We have similar screens sizes and when we will have white areas visible in each aspect ratio


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hehateme* /forum/post/20642048
> 
> 
> How were you planning on avoiding the white area in the screen?



Initially...nothing. The JVC RS20 has nice black levels, and so far on the temp screen they haven't bothered me. I've also visited several local HTs with JVC projectors, on 16:9 screens, and never found the bars on 2.35:1 material distracting at all.


At some point, maybe will add masking, but probably not something I'm going to prioritize right away.


Edit: woot, just saw my material shipped - crossing fingers about the frame.


----------



## NicksHitachi

I haven't needed masking yet but my room is a bit of a cave....... I hope your as impressed with the screen material as I was Brad!


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NicksHitachi* /forum/post/20643113
> 
> 
> I haven't needed masking yet but my room is a bit of a cave....... I hope your as impressed with the screen material as I was Brad!



Planning on it! Thanks Nick


----------



## SteveHorn

I agree with both 'Nick' and 'Brad' - in a dark(er) room, letterbox or portal bars will likely not be an issue unless you're a real purist. I had planned on going with 2.35-to-1.78 masking panels (either Seymour or maybe DIY) but have not yet found the need. PJ is a JVC; screen is 2.35 AT; room is mostly light controlled. Currently 'zoom" to CIH, but an a-lens is on the way.


----------



## hehateme

I watched some more movies on my white muslin screen. I tried both 16:9 and 2:35 Aspect Ratios. Room was dark and I was fine with bars. In future if I feel the need I will buy them from Chris or build my own. I hope the get my screen in next 10 day or so.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hehateme* /forum/post/20657820
> 
> 
> I hope the get my screen in next 10 day or so.



I'm expecting my frame by Thursday and screen material by Friday!







Unfortunately, we're taking a short vacation this weekend in San Diego, so screen probably doesn't get built until next week.


----------



## iamcdn22

Just wanted to give Seymour and Chris some major props. I went with a 109" 16:9 fixed screen. It is paired with a JVC RS40 and the picture is amazing. I have a set of Noble Fidelity L-85s I use as LCR behind the screen and they nearly sit right on the screen and there is definitely no movement or any concern there. The sound is great through this screen as is the picture itself. It was easy to put together and install, very easy to hang and the quality is top notch.


My only negative is that I can on occasion see the weave when watching in some ambient light on light scenes. I sit 13 feet away. This was only an issue initially as I am still waiting for my blackout blinds to be delivered. Since I have put garbage bags on the windows things have been much better. When watching in the dark, no weave can be seen even in light scenes.



Thanks


----------



## hehateme

Brad,


I find it funny when I hear folks say that unfortunately they are taking a vacation.

I do completely understand what you mean. My theater is supposed to finish in the third week of July and I am going to Seattle for 3 days. Normally I enjoy going there but this time I don't feel like going. I would rather be running Anthem ARC to setup my home theater.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Haha, yeah it felt kinda funny saying it that way, but I figured you guys would understand what I mean - I'm actually looking forward to the trip, but... yeah... screen ya know?


----------



## premiertrussman

How does the original Center Stage material spec out against the XD...I see they're still offering it on close out....As always, money is tight...just wondering if i could afford to get the older stuff.


Im not as concerned about acoustic transparency and gain as i am with seeing the weave...I've got pretty sharp eyes and the first row is only about 8'6" back. I've got a sample of the XD material and theres no issue there....Just would like to know how the original stacks up.


Btw...right now im using a canvas cotten blend of some sort i got on sale lol....As good as it looks for what it is...anything has got to be an improvement over that...


----------



## SteveHorn

Can you get Chris to send you a 2x2 sample?


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20695968
> 
> 
> Can you get Chris to send you a 2x2 sample?



8.5"x11" is free; 2'x2' is $20 - see his site for more info.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/20696100
> 
> 
> 8.5"x11" is free; 2'x2' is $20 - see his site for more info.



But will/can Chris supply a sample of the pre-XD fabric? Dunno.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Oh shoot, I only saw your post, not the post that it was a reply to on the previous page.


Not sure if Chris has samples of the old material available? If he doesn't, let me know, I have a sample (8.5x11) of both old and new materials, I can send them to you.


----------



## NicksHitachi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Oh shoot, I only saw your post, not the post that it was a reply to on the previous page.
> 
> 
> Not sure if Chris has samples of the old material available? If he doesn't, let me know, I have a sample (8.5x11) of both old and new materials, I can send them to you.



Do this at your own risk.... Once you get that goodness In your hands you'll

have to buy it.....


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20696783
> 
> 
> But will/can Chris supply a sample of the pre-XD fabric? Dunno.



I do have some of the older material samples still available. Let me know if the address to mail one if you want.


If you are sitting at the 8'6" row, I'd definitely want to be watching the XD vs. the older stuff. However, if your row is at maybe 12-13' and the 8'6" is less critical (e.g. kids), then maybe that would work. The XD shows its benefits at closer seating, pushing larger screen sizes/ gain, and duller sounding systems or where that +0.5dB has some benefit.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Got my Jamestown frame / Seymour DIY material hybrid done - works great!






































Thanks for continuing to support the DIY option Chris.


----------



## premiertrussman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/20697996
> 
> 
> I do have some of the older material samples still available. Let me know if the address to mail one if you want.
> 
> 
> If you are sitting at the 8'6" row, I'd definitely want to be watching the XD vs. the older stuff. However, if your row is at maybe 12-13' and the 8'6" is less critical (e.g. kids), then maybe that would work. The XD shows its benefits at closer seating, pushing larger screen sizes/ gain, and duller sounding systems or where that +0.5dB has some benefit.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Hmmm thanks for the input. Sounds like I better stick with the XD material....its probably only $80 difference between the two for the material i need...whats 80 dollars in the long run...I'll just save and do it right.


Thanks again though. I really appreciate you taking the time to reply!


----------



## premiertrussman

Screen looks awesome Brad!


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Thanks PT


----------



## Supermatch

Just to add one more to the mix (bad camera shot).


120" Seymour XD fabric, tarp clips and zip ties for tension. As PITA as the clips were to get on, I'll just have them cut and grommet for O-rings on the next screen I do (which hopefully isn't for a very long time!) I was very reluctant to go with an AT screen, but am very glad I did, and wouldn't hesitate to order the Seymour CS XD fabric again.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Looks great, and nice screen shot!


----------



## Supermatch

Thanks Brad! Camera is good (Canon 7D), but the PS3 has a heck of a time capturing clean stills when pausing, so it takes quite a bit of time to get a good one!


----------



## alan_ct

Where can you find pricing on the Elun screens? Al


----------



## rizki96

hi chris,


please check your email from [email protected] waiting for your response. many thanks


----------



## mailinator

Still trying to decide on a screen material. How do you clean a screen like the Center StageXD material? I have young children, and my biggest feat is grubby fingers fouling the screen. I presume non AT vinyl would be much easier to clean. Any experience or suggestions?


----------



## StevenC56

Quote:

Originally Posted by *mailinator* 
Still trying to decide on a screen material. How do you clean a screen like the Center StageXD material? I have young children, and my biggest feat is grubby fingers fouling the screen. I presume non AT vinyl would be much easier to clean. Any experience or suggestions?
My advice-Don't let your kids touch the screen.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mailinator* /forum/post/20763393
> 
> 
> Still trying to decide on a screen material. How do you clean a screen like the Center StageXD material? I have young children, and my biggest feat is grubby fingers fouling the screen. I presume non AT vinyl would be much easier to clean. Any experience or suggestions?



Earlier in this thread somewhere, Chris Seymour describes way(s) to clean an XD screen. Do a search on 'cleaning' or similar.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mailinator* /forum/post/20763393
> 
> 
> Still trying to decide on a screen material. How do you clean a screen like the Center StageXD material? I have young children, and my biggest feat is grubby fingers fouling the screen. I presume non AT vinyl would be much easier to clean. Any experience or suggestions?



A woven AT screen is actually much more durable than most non-AT screens because the fiber thread cores reinforce it. You can area-clean the screen using a vacuum brush or rag with the milder cleaners or soap. If you have our fixed frame screen, the o-ring tension system allows you to area clean it or gently spot clean it without stretching it enough to cause waves. The o-rings will just eat it back up like a trampoline. If you really have to scrub something, put the screen flat on a table or otherwise reinforce the back so you're not poking as much of a dimple into the material.


If that doesn't do it, let me know. We have some more aggressive steps that can be used too.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## mjg100

Chris, I have been enjoying my Center Stage XD screen (DIY) for over a year now. Look forward to meeting you at CEDIA.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/20765483
> 
> 
> Chris, I have been enjoying my Center Stage XD screen (DIY) for over a year now. Look forward to meeting you at CEDIA.



Patrice and I will be at booth #631 this year. Hope to see you there!


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## gsearles

Got my samples today. Can't believe how fine the 4K material is! Is there an effective difference in gain between it and the XD?


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Greg -


There is about a 12% difference in gain between the two, although keep in mind that brightness perception is not linear.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/20765483
> 
> 
> Chris, I have been enjoying my Center Stage XD screen (DIY) for over a year now. Look forward to meeting you at CEDIA.



I enjoyed meeting you Mike, as well as the other AVSers out there that stopped by the S-SE booth and/or demo room with Pro Audio Technology (very impressive performance btw for the price, especially compared to the Synthesis room). I wish at the AVS party, though, that they slapped a name badge with people's sign-on names. I'm sure I knew most of the people in the Tavern by sign-on names but otherwise I didn't get a chance to meet most of them.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## DouglasCleary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/20943240
> 
> 
> Hi Greg -
> 
> 
> There is about a 12% difference in gain between the two, although keep in mind that brightness perception is not linear.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



What's the price difference? ...since my screen hasn't shipped yet.


----------



## gsearles




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DouglasCleary* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> What's the price difference? ...since my screen hasn't shipped yet.



And which is higher gain?


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/20943255
> 
> 
> I enjoyed meeting you Mike, as well as the other AVSers out there that stopped by the S-SE booth and/or demo room with Pro Audio Technology (very impressive performance btw for the price, especially compared to the Synthesis room). I wish at the AVS party, though, that they slapped a name badge with people's sign-on names. I'm sure I knew most of the people in the Tavern by sign-on names but otherwise I didn't get a chance to meet most of them.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I know what you mean. I have probably posted responses to half the people there, but I did not know who was who. I spent most of the night upstairs.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gsearles* /forum/post/20943335
> 
> 
> And which is higher gain?



The XD is higher gain.


----------



## dlynch34

Anyone know how long it takes once you place your order that you receive your screen? I ordered a fixed screen on sept 2 and as far as I can tell it has not shipped yet. I was just curious.


Thanks!


----------



## Ericglo

I have to apologize to Cris. He spotted me walking around and I didn't stop in till the end of the show. I figured he didn't recognize me, but to my surprise he remembered exactly who I was. The reason I didn't stop is I like walking a show first then coming back and stopping at the booths I want to see. Also, I didn't get a chance to chat at the party.


Now, on to the screen. I was blown away by the 4k material. Another person I was with thought it was a solid screen when he first saw it. I must confess I thought the same when I saw it as well. I think it has less texture than some solid screens out there. You have done an outstanding job on this material and screen. It is well worth the price of admission for those looking for an AT screen.


With your 4k material and SMX's 4k material, I don't see how anyone could look at the other manufacturers. If you are in the market for an AT screen, then grab samples of both of these and forget about the rest. I can personally see the perf on a Stewart at ten feet, as well as other perf screens, which to me is unacceptable.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ericglo* /forum/post/20950686
> 
> 
> I have to apologize to Cris. He spotted me walking around and I didn't stop in till the end of the show. I figured he didn't recognize me, but to my surprise he remembered exactly who I was. The reason I didn't stop is I like walking a show first then coming back and stopping at the booths I want to see. Also, I didn't get a chance to chat at the party.
> 
> 
> Now, on to the screen. I was blown away by the 4k material. Another person I was with thought it was a solid screen when he first saw it. I must confess I thought the same when I saw it as well. I think it has less texture than some solid screens out there. You have done an outstanding job on this material and screen. It is well worth the price of admission for those looking for an AT screen.
> 
> 
> With your 4k material and SMX's 4k material, I don't see how anyone could look at the other manufacturers. If you are in the market for an AT screen, then grab samples of both of these and forget about the rest. I can personally see the perf on a Stewart at ten feet, as well as other perf screens, which to me is unacceptable.



I agree the 4k stuff looked fantastic. Chris told me that the pro audio room was using one of his 4k screens. I went to that room really just to see the screen, but I do like pro audio too. The screen looked very good. I walked right up to the screen and it still looked good. Can't wait to see it in my room. Thanks Chris.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dlynch34* /forum/post/20949599
> 
> 
> Anyone know how long it takes once you place your order that you receive your screen? I ordered a fixed screen on sept 2 and as far as I can tell it has not shipped yet. I was just curious.
> 
> 
> Thanks!



In case you didn't get the notification from PayPal with the tracking number, I emailed it to you too.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## BakeApples

Have anyone tried the centerstage screen together with a Sony VWPRO1 projector (HW20 in Europe) and if so, what are your thoughts on this combination both in terms of picture & sound?


I have just bought a HW20 projector and i`m now looking for a acustic screen and Seymour looks like a good choice.


----------



## spuj

The "4K" material mentioned, is this a new material or the current being used in the CSXD screens?


----------



## SteveHorn

If I'm not mistaken, the 4K refers to EN4k, the fabric used/available on the Screen Excellence brand of screens that Seymour manufactures and markets in the US. But I could be mistaken...

See this link .


----------



## gsearles




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, the 4K refers to EN4k, the fabric used/available on the Screen Excellence brand of screens that Seymour manufactures and markets in the US. But I could be mistaken...
> 
> See this link .



That's exactly right. Screen excellence now sells this screen via Seymour.


Seymour produces the less expensive Center Stage XD.


They're totally different material.


Greg


----------



## Larry M

What is the price difference between the 4K and the Center StageXD?

I am looking at between a 110" wide or 120" wide 1.78 screen


I was trying to contact AVScience and SMX about their clearance screens but I never got a response so I need to look at less expensive options. How does the Center Stage XD compare against the SMX screen?


----------



## Vincehoffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21001316
> 
> 
> What is the price difference between the 4K and the Center StageXD?
> 
> I am looking at between a 110" wide or 120" wide 1.78 screen



Hey Larry,


About a week ago I spent some quality phone time with Chris figuring out which way to go with a motorized 105" AT scope (2.35:1) screen and at "list" the SSE EN4k electric was more than double the price of a similar sized Center Stage XD screen with the same accessory kit. That being said, when I take possession of my new (to me) Schneider 1.33X lens and motorized mount tomorrow, I'll be putting in an order for the more expensive screen...


Happy Trails!

MTB Vince


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21001316
> 
> 
> What is the price difference between the 4K and the Center StageXD?
> 
> I am looking at between a 110" wide or 120" wide 1.78 screen
> 
> 
> I was trying to contact AVScience and SMX about their clearance screens but I never got a response so I need to look at less expensive options. How does the Center Stage XD compare against the SMX screen?



Sorry that you did not get a response. If I can help you, please contact me. I have both Center Stage and the EN4K, but I do not have the 4K in place yet. I have taped the 4k to my Center Stage screen to see what it looked like. I am going to the 4K because I am moving my viewing distance up to 1.3 x screen width.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 05* /forum/post/21022950
> 
> 
> Sorry that you did not get a response. If I can help you, please contact me. I have both Center Stage and the EN4K, but I do not have the 4K in place yet. I have taped the 4k to my Center Stage screen to see what it looked like. I am going to the 4K because I am moving my viewing distance up to 1.3 x screen width.



Mike,


And what is your screen width? Is it scope?










From your experience, will I be OK with a 12.5 ft viewing distance from a 120" wide scope Center Stage?










...Glenn


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/21024754
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> 
> And what is your screen width? Is it scope?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your experience, will I be OK with a 12.5 ft viewing distance from a 120" wide scope Center Stage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



Maybe these would help:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post19892234 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post19892018 


I'm 12' from a 136" wide, and don't see any weave; one of my son's friends (12 years old) mentioned he could, must have very good visual acuity, noone else has mentioned seeing it. I have maybe about 8-10 degrees tilt (max I could get on my screen size given the material width), and an RS20, and no sign of moire.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/21025143
> 
> 
> Maybe these would help:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post19892234
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post19892018
> 
> 
> I'm 12' from a 136" wide, and don't see any weave; one of my son's friends (12 years old) mentioned he could, must have very good visual acuity, noone else has mentioned seeing it. I have maybe about 8-10 degrees tilt (max I could get on my screen size given the material width), and an RS20, and no sign of moire.



Thanks for the links Brad!


I also have a new JVC RS20 that I am getting close to setting up for the first time.







I am probably going to go with a 120" wide Scope Center Stage and I will be using a Panamorph UH480 lens with motorized sled.


My viewing distance will be about 12 ft or a bit more and my throw distance will be 16 ft or so. I will only have 1 row of (3) attached seats in a room that is 12' 3" wide and 21 ft long. My room will have total light control.


I would really like to use the 4K material but I am concerned about overall brightness over time and maybe the Center Stage would be better suited with it's somewhat higher gain!











...Glenn


----------



## deromax

The visibility of the screen material texture is related to the viewing distance, the screen size doesn't matter. I'm about 11 feet from my xd screen and the texture is visible only on large patch of white picture content and when the camera is panning. I think it's a small price to pay for getting the immense advantage of conceiled speakers and sound coming from the screen. I'll take a little texture over the glossy look of the average TV set!


Edit : I rechecked and I'm more at 9-10 feet than 11 feet!


----------



## dropzone7

Just starting to read this thread as I'm in the market for a 2.35 AT screen in the near future. I will be using in wall speakers behind the screen but they won't really be in the wall. They are Snell AMC-870's with their own enclosures so I'm building a sort of frame to hold them near the wall but not in it. The wall will be completed treated in OC703 or similar. I'm curious, how far should the screen be from the speakers?


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7* /forum/post/21032296
> 
> 
> Just starting to read this thread as I'm in the market for a 2.35 AT screen in the near future. I will be using in wall speakers behind the screen but they won't really be in the wall. They are Snell AMC-870's with their own enclosures so I'm building a sort of frame to hold them near the wall but not in it. The wall will be completed treated in OC703 or similar. I'm curious, how far should the screen be from the speakers?



Even up to a couple of inches is fine!



...Glenn


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/21032356
> 
> 
> Even up to a couple of inches is fine!
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



That's good because I don't have much room to spare!


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Yeah, these weave screens can have the speakers very close unlike a perf type screen where you have to have the speakers back a little ways otherwise you are subject to various anomalies due to reflection.



...Glenn


----------



## dropzone7

So do most people go with the black backing material or not?


----------



## secondhander

Does anyone know if the Center Stage XD screen fabric comes in smaller sizes than 98" wide?? My screen size is 104" wide x 44.3" in height (2.35:1), if I ordered 10' in length I would have enough for 2 screens... It's twice as much for my needs.


Thanks


----------



## Glenn Baumann

General consensus on the Black Backing seems to be that if the area behind your screen is dark with no reflective sufaces such as reflective metal speaker cones or dust shields you should be OK!


Even the reflective speaker issue can be dealt with by utilizing black out material over the individual speakers if need be!



...Glenn


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7* /forum/post/21032389
> 
> 
> So do most people go with the black backing material or not?



I did the black backing just to be safe. Cheap insurance.


----------



## elmalloc

So does seymour offer a 4K material? I see there is some screen excellence 4K or something that's been out a couple years (???) that is 4K.


Thanks,

ELmO


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *secondhander* /forum/post/21032520
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if the Center Stage XD screen fabric comes in smaller sizes than 98" wide?? My screen size is 104" wide x 44.3" in height (2.35:1), if I ordered 10' in length I would have enough for 2 screens... It's twice as much for my needs.
> 
> 
> Thanks



Plan on tilting your fabric on the frame to eliminate any possibility of moire. That will use up a lot of the spare real estate you have. See the DIY section on the Seymour AV site.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/21032593
> 
> 
> So does seymour offer a 4K material? I see there is some screen excellence 4K or something that's been out a couple years (???) that is 4K.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ELmO



There seems to be two "4K" labels floating around: SMX and Seymour - Screen Excellence. The Screen Excellence "Enlightor 4K" is only available, to my knowledge, on the Screen Excellence screen being marketed (and manufactured I believe) in the US by Seymour AV; not as a separate DIY offering. There are several posts earlier that discuss the SMX.


----------



## BobL

Chis can correct me if I'm wrong. I think the Enlightor 4K material comes from Europe (?France) but the frames are now manufactured here.


----------



## DouglasCleary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax* /forum/post/21029307
> 
> 
> The visibility of the screen material texture is related to the viewing distance, the screen size doesn't matter. I'm about 11 feet from my xd screen and the texture is visible only on large patch of white picture content and when the camera is panning. I think it's a small price to pay for getting the immense advantage of conceiled speakers and sound coming from the screen. I'll take a little texture over the glossy look of the average TV set!
> 
> 
> Edit : I rechecked and I'm more at 9-10 feet than 11 feet!



I have the same experience. I love the screen.


----------



## elmalloc

I will not sacrifice any 20/20 vision image quality to hide the speakers. I guess I'm a video guy first, subwoofer guy second, rest of audio guy third - FYI.


The 2K material from either manufacturer is a hindrance to me because I cannot pixel focus on it, so I am losing some sort of detail/sharpness in my opinion at my seating distance/image size. I am interested in the 4K material as although the gain is slightly negative it seems from what we read, pixel focusing is done just fine.


Here's Chris and the 4K material:






-ELmO


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7* /forum/post/21032296
> 
> 
> Just starting to read this thread as I'm in the market for a 2.35 AT screen in the near future. I will be using in wall speakers behind the screen but they won't really be in the wall. They are Snell AMC-870's with their own enclosures so I'm building a sort of frame to hold them near the wall but not in it. The wall will be completed treated in OC703 or similar. I'm curious, how far should the screen be from the speakers?



While you can measure a little improvement around 20kHz by giving it an inch or two of airspace, the effect is inaudible and the material is designed to hang right over in-walls. The only cautions are physically bumping the screen and high airflow ports which could in theory move the screen, although I don't recall any issues in the field on that.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *secondhander* /forum/post/21032520
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if the Center Stage XD screen fabric comes in smaller sizes than 98" wide?? My screen size is 104" wide x 44.3" in height (2.35:1), if I ordered 10' in length I would have enough for 2 screens... It's twice as much for my needs.
> 
> 
> Thanks



Smaller screens fit perpendicularly on the roll. For this example, assuming a +2.5" margin to affix to the frame, the total piece size would be 109" x 49.3". At a 20 degree tilted bias to the cut, it would need 98" x 10' of material, so there's no chance of fitting it perpendicularly unless you were going with a zero-tilt screen. You may be able to do this, as the Center Stage XD is designed to be moire resistant and we make retractables with zero tilt. However, at the small size that a 16:9 would be on this screen, there is some risk so I'd either recommend proving out via a sample first or going the 100% route and get the cut tilted with respect to the roll.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BobL* /forum/post/21033116
> 
> 
> Chis can correct me if I'm wrong. I think the Enlightor 4K material comes from Europe (?France) but the frames are now manufactured here.



That's generally correct.


The Center Stage XD will hold a 4k pattern on the larger screen sizes. I'll have a spec out after a bit more playing around.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/21033218
> 
> 
> I will not sacrifice any 20/20 vision image quality to hide the speakers. I guess I'm a video guy first, subwoofer guy second, rest of audio guy third - FYI.
> 
> 
> ... I am interested in the 4K material as although the gain is slightly negative it seems from what we read, pixel focusing is done just fine.
> 
> 
> Here's Chris and the 4K material:
> 
> 
> -ELmO



With the S-SE Enlightor-4K screen material you are not sacrificing video quality versus a solid screen with the same FtL. In fact, solid screens are typically compromised in that they are forced to fit within a certain size within the front soundstage. As a video guy, I'd never compromise my image by being allergic to acoustical best practice. Little solid screens are fine for TV, but not for film.


Hmm. That forehead tattoo I got in Indy doesn't look as good on camera as they said it would.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## elmalloc

Lol, yeah that tattoo is awesome! How can we get 4k material samples from you chris?


Also, where can we see pricing of DYI vs custom built 2.7 curved screens from you? Is your website up to date with screen excellence material/can people in USA purchase it ?


Thanks,

ELmO


----------



## rukus29




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/21034887
> 
> 
> Lol, yeah that tattoo is awesome! How can we get 4k material samples from you chris?
> 
> 
> Also, where can we see pricing of DYI vs custom built 2.7 curved screens from you? Is your website up to date with screen excellence material/can people in USA purchase it ?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ELmO



+1 on 4k samples question. Also Can we buy the 4k material for DIY builds? If not...... please???


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/21034887
> 
> 
> Lol, yeah that tattoo is awesome! How can we get 4k material samples from you chris?
> 
> 
> Also, where can we see pricing of DYI vs custom built 2.7 curved screens from you? Is your website up to date with screen excellence material/can people in USA purchase it ?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ELmO



Just PM, email, or call for samples.


The Enlightor-4K material is not suitable for DIY applications and only available through Seymour-Screen Excellence dealers or installers. Let me know if you'd like list pricing or a referral to a local dealer or installer, of which AVS is one.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Here is a cool DIY theater that got some press. Not sure if Warren is subscribed to the thread but he should still at least get a jealous, slow clap for such an ambitious build.

DIY Home Theater Includes 176-inch Seymour Screen 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21037521
> 
> 
> Just PM, email, or call for samples.
> 
> 
> The Enlightor-4K material is not suitable for DIY applications and only available through Seymour-Screen Excellence dealers or installers. Let me know if you'd like list pricing or a referral to a local dealer or installer, of which AVS is one.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I keep hope that some day they will change there mind and allow the sale of material only. Their are instances, mine is one of them, when a prebuilt screen just doesn't work. The only reason I would switch out my Center Stage material is to get the Enlightor, but so far that just isn't an option.


----------



## BobL

We install both and I can totally understand why the Enlightor 4K is not a DIY product. It is not a matter of releasing for the DIY market but more on how it is mounted and tensioned that doesn't make it practical.


----------



## Vincehoffman

Ok this may be kinda a newbie (read: DUMB) question but this will be my first AT screen and my first motorized screen and only my second screen period. So here goes...


As I've never met a tab-tensioned motorized screen in person, and no screen manufacturers publish shots of the backsides of their screens, I've been left to assume that tab tensioned screens have spaced horizontal crossbars (and associated wires???) on their backside. When having a SS-E EN4K electric built, how do you ensure that you don't end up with these sonically obnoxious diffractive crossbars hanging in front of your midrange or tweeters?


Happy Trails!

MTB Vince


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vincehoffman* /forum/post/21039639
> 
> 
> Ok this may be kinda a newbie (read: DUMB) question but this will be my first AT screen and my first motorized screen and only my second screen period. So here goes...
> 
> 
> As I've never met a tab-tensioned motorized screen in person, and no screen manufacturers publish shots of the backsides of their screens, I've been left to assume that tab tensioned screens have spaced horizontal crossbars (and associated wires???) on their backside. When having a SS-E EN4K electric built, how do you ensure that you don't end up with these sonically obnoxious diffractive crossbars hanging in front of your midrange or tweeters?
> 
> 
> Happy Trails!
> 
> MTB Vince



Vince,



No crossbars involved at all!


The screen material has tension tabs attached along the left and right edges of the screen material. Then there is a cord that is threaded through the tabs and anchors on the top and bottom corners on each screen side. The anchor points are attached farther out then the tabs and when pulled tight an outward pulling force is applied to the tabs stretching the screen material tight.


Take a look here http://www.seymourav.com/screensretractable.asp 

Go to the bottom of the link and look at the picture right above the Retractable Screen Dimensions and you will get the picture (pun intended)!











...Glenn


----------



## Vincehoffman

Dooohhh!







Thanks Glenn.


Happy Trails!

MTB Vince


----------



## Davecraze

Chris,


Is there any way to get the 130 inch wide 1.78 in an electric screen? Looks like only the 2.35 130 inch electric is listed on your web site. Thanks.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Davecraze* /forum/post/21063913
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Is there any way to get the 130 inch wide 1.78 in an electric screen? Looks like only the 2.35 130 inch electric is listed on your web site. Thanks.



I can certainly do it in a caseless version. I'm not sure if I can fit that much into the existing case or if I'd need to expand it a bit. It would also help if you had a smallish drop dimension.


PM or email me if this sounds reasonable and we can get into specifics.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## gsearles

Curious about new masking options for the Seymour/SE fixed frames.


I came across this on Audioholics:

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/p...ing-panels-pre 


Particularly maybe interested in the constant image area setup. But no info on the Seymour website yet that I can find. Chris, when is this all going to be available?


Greg


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gsearles* /forum/post/21086666
> 
> 
> Curious about new masking options for the Seymour/SE fixed frames.
> 
> 
> I came across this on Audioholics:
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/p...ing-panels-pre
> 
> 
> Particularly maybe interested in the constant image area setup. But no info on the Seymour website yet that I can find. Chris, when is this all going to be available?
> 
> 
> Greg



I skimmed the article, but isn't it this on Chris' site (about half way down)
http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp


----------



## stef2

Hi! I just received my SeymourAV screen today.


My home theater isnt finished yet, but I cant wait to hang the screen on the wall!


The box is quite damaged on the outside. Hopefully, the screen will be intact...


For such a large box to trave fom California to Quebec, Canada, it is probably not that bad.


I will post my impressions as soon as I have finished building it...


----------



## NicksHitachi

Thought I would share this: I found a ring grommet kit at walmart for $5. I might would have tried this if I'd found it before doing mine.


----------



## tbraden32

I have been thinking of getting an AT screen from Seymour. Are they ok with some ambient light? 80% of viewing will be done in dark, but parties for games will have some background light.


Thinking 105" wide and seating around 10-11'. Projector TBD but thinking Panny 4000/7000 or JVC RS45


Suggestions?


----------



## SteveHorn

I can't speak to the Panny but you'll have no problems with the JVC lighting the XD screen in a semi lit/dark room. I have a JVC HD950 and it can easily light my 115" scope XD AT screen in a daylight lit room (afternoon football games for example.)


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/21136734
> 
> 
> I can't speak to the Panny but you'll have no problems with the JVC lighting the XD screen in a semi lit/dark room. I have a JVC HD950 and it can easily light my 115" scope XD AT screen in a daylight lit room (afternoon football games for example.)



115" wide?


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21141651
> 
> 
> 115" wide?



Yes, 115" x ~49" scope AR. HD (16:9) is about 87" x 49"


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/21136734
> 
> 
> I can't speak to the Panny but you'll have no problems with the JVC lighting the XD screen in a semi lit/dark room. I have a JVC HD950 and it can easily light my 115" scope XD AT screen in a daylight lit room (afternoon football games for example.)



SteveHorn,


What is your throw distance and viewing distance? How many hours on your bulb?










I believe you are using a Prismasonic A-Lens, correct?


The reason for my curiosity is that I will be setting up a JVC RS20 shortly with a Panamorph UH480 A-Lens and I am still deciding if I can still go with the desired Seymour XD AT screen in my preferred 120" wide size or if I might be better off stepping down to the 115" or even 110" wide sizes considering overall immersion and more importantly bulb dimming over time with this particular setup?










My throw distance will be about 16 ft and the viewing distance about 12 to 12.5 ft.



...Glenn


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442* /forum/post/21141982
> 
> 
> Can someone who has the Centerstage XD material post a similar picture with a coin for size reference so I compare...or at least direct me to a shot that has already been taken? Thanks.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/21141847
> 
> 
> SteveHorn,
> 
> 
> What is your throw distance and viewing distance? How many hours on your bulb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are using a Prismasonic A-Lens, correct?
> 
> ...Glenn



Throw dist 15 feet. View distance started at 12' but I moved in a bit and am now at a little over 10'. Hours on the bulb: 1039.3, all in economy mode. Prismasonic 6000 A-lens. I don't think I have age-dim issue but I don't have any way to measure ftL. Most of the viewing is in the dark or virtually dark. But I can easily watch daytime football in a well lit (although not direct sunlight) room.


----------



## Mike Garrett

I wanted to let everyone know that I have an Enlightor 4k screen along with samples of many other screens. When I have time I am going to take pictures (get my brother that is in to photography) showing how this screen compares. I am very pleased with the performance. I am viewing from 10' (1.3 screen widths). Great screen.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/21142097



Here is Enlightor 4K








[/IMG]


----------



## SteveHorn

Now compare the $$ for equivalent sized S-A/V Ctr Stage/XD and S-E EN4K screens. That's only fair.







I know we can't talk $ here, but you can post a ratio to indicate that we're comparing apples vs. oranges.


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/21165206
> 
> 
> Now compare the $$ for equivalent sized S-A/V Ctr Stage/XD and S-E EN4K screens. That's only fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know we can't talk $ here, but you can post a ratio to indicate that we're comparing apples vs. oranges.



It is basically apples to a lot of oranges with Florida being hit by hurricanes for 14 months straight


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/21165206
> 
> 
> Now compare the $$ for equivalent sized S-A/V Ctr Stage/XD and S-E EN4K screens. That's only fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know we can't talk $ here, but you can post a ratio to indicate that we're comparing apples vs. oranges.



I was just showing what Enlightor 4K looks like since I did not see an example. Enlightor 4K is a great looking screen. As others have said, you would not realize that it was AT, when looking at it. Nothing wrong with Center Stage XD. I used it for over a year. It just comes down to viewing distance and eye acuity.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 05* /forum/post/21166656
> 
> 
> I was just showing what Enlightor 4K looks like since I did not see an example. Enlightor 4K is a great looking screen. As others have said, you would not realize that it was AT, when looking at it. Nothing wrong with Center Stage XD. I used it for over a year. It just comes down to viewing distance and eye acuity.



Understood. I have an EN4K sample and have an XD screen in my theater. I was concerned that someone might read these posts and conclude that the two screen materials are comparable in cost as well as A/V quality.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 05* /forum/post/21166656
> 
> 
> I was just showing what Enlightor 4K looks like since I did not see an example. Enlightor 4K is a great looking screen. As others have said, you would not realize that it was AT, when looking at it. Nothing wrong with Center Stage XD. I used it for over a year. It just comes down to viewing distance and eye acuity.



Don't forget Center Stage XD has a somewhat higher gain!










...Glenn


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 05* /forum/post/21166656
> 
> 
> I was just showing what Enlightor 4K looks like since I did not see an example. Enlightor 4K is a great looking screen. As others have said, you would not realize that it was AT, when looking at it. Nothing wrong with Center Stage XD. I used it for over a year. It just comes down to viewing distance and eye acuity.



Oh I agree it is a incredible material and the added cost is certainly there. As the saying goes, you have to pay to play


----------



## Scamps

*whew*


After months of delay, I finally have my screen mounted to the "wall".


Which leaves me with a couple of quick questions....
(Questions which are probably linked to my losing all the instructions before getting this thing mounted. )


1. The screen came with a two part metal mounting bracket. The first one I mounted to the wall, but I could not figure out how to attach the other side to the frame of the screen so I just hung it from the lip of the frame itself. Is that bad?


The cross board holding the bracket.










The top bar of the screen mounted on the bracket.










2. With the picture sized to fit the entire screen, things like the FF and REV arrows show up on the border, I assume this is normal?


3. Along with the screen I ordered a set of side masking panels. I assume the guitar pick goes at the top, but I still can't get the darn things to stay in place. Is there some trick to this I'm missing?


----------



## Kaisand

Scamps,


1. How many silver mounting brackets came with the screen? If you received one, it was meant to be centered like you have it. If you received two mounting brackets, they were meant to be evenly spaced to distribute the load evenly across the top. You are correct that the frame lip was meant to engage the brackets.

2.Yes that is normal.

3. If you look on the back inside edge of the masking panels there is usually a label that says where it is to be located (right, left) and the label is usually toward the bottom side of the panel. I believe the guitar pick is always toward the bottom as well.


Hope this helps!


----------



## Scamps




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kaisand* /forum/post/21210672
> 
> 
> Scamps,
> 
> 
> 1. If you received two mounting brackets, they were meant to be evenly spaced to distribute the load evenly across the top.



Ahh. I never thought of that. Oh well one seems to he holding it. Hopefully I won't come home one day to find it on the floor...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kaisand* /forum/post/21210672
> 
> 
> I believe the guitar pick is always toward the bottom as well.



Really? Towards the bottom? OK I'll give that a try tonight.


Thanks.


----------



## SteveHorn

 Here is a link from Seymour's web site for the instructions you lost.


----------



## Scamps




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/21212546
> 
> Here is a link from Seymour's web site for the instructions you lost.



Excellent. I looked for a link on the website but never found it. In fact I still can't find it. Bad form Seymour.


On the other hand, I was able to figure pretty much everything out with out them so that's a sign of a well designed piece of hardware.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scamps* /forum/post/21213334
> 
> 
> Excellent. I looked for a link on the website but never found it. In fact I still can't find it. Bad form Seymour.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I was able to figure pretty much everything out with out them so that's a sign of a well designed piece of hardware.



The link on the website is on the fixed frame page here, down at the bottom near the illustration: http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp You can get there from any page on the site through the "Screens" header.


If we supplied two Hangman cleats, then you need to use both due to the width of the screen. We recommend mounting them at about 1/6 to 5/6 width of the frame when using panels. That will ensure the top frame piece is perfectly straight and the panels will fit properly. And yes, on the CIH (side) panels, the pick points down so you can read the label to see what side is what. Place it between the frame and the screen, push it up and let the magnets do their magic.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Scamps




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21214332
> 
> 
> The link on the website is on the fixed frame page here, down at the bottom near the illustration: http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp You can get there from any page on the site through the "Screens" header.



Can I suggest adding a "support" header to the website? It would make it easier to find things like this and probably save you a few emails/calls.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21214332
> 
> 
> And yes, on the CIH (side) panels, the pick points down so you can read the label to see what side is what. Place it between the frame and the screen, push it up and let the magnets do their magic.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I might have to downgrade myself from "Builder in training" back to "HT newbie". I was trying to put them in velvet-to-velvet rather than the other way round. My bad.


You should put me in a commercial. Look! Even this noob can get ridiculously good results with SeymourAV.


----------



## Scamps

I came home at lunch and tried using the panels in the proper direction, pick down velvet closer to the center of the screen. They still fall off.


So I took a Neodymium Magnet (very strong) and ran it around the edge of the panels and the screen. On the screen I was easily able to locate the magnets placed under the velvet on the top and sides of the frame. However the only thing remotely magnetic on the panels are the right angle brackets.


So does that mean the magnets for the panels are in with the directions I have misplaced and I was supposed to install them?


----------



## chriscmore

The panel magnets are located along the outside edge, in the same locations as you found them on the frame.


It is a requirement like I said that you hang the screen using both Hangman cleats, spaced widely like I said. Otherwise, there will be too much space between the panels and the frame. They are a very close fit and the magnets need close spacing in order to work.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

You may not have the current, all-magnet panels. If your panels have 1/2" thick squishy-foam along their tops and bottoms, then they are the interference fit versions. It would be even more important for the two supplied Hangman brackets, spaced widely, to be used so that the fit within the frame is as designed. They should fit snugly and require a little compression to squish into the frame.


The current all-magnet versions are less sensitive to how the frame is hung.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Bulldogger

Widescreen Review has a review of the 4k screen. Have not yet gotten my copy.


----------



## gsearles




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bulldogger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Widescreen Review has a review of the 4k screen. Have not yet gotten my copy.



Anyone with online access read it and care to share a synopsis of the review?


Greg


----------



## Larry M

What does the Screen Excellence masking panels look like? Is it the same as the seymour panels even though it is a different frame?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21300546
> 
> 
> What does the Screen Excellence masking panels look like? Is it the same as the seymour panels even though it is a different frame?



Yes, they're the same panels, magnets and all.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21302368
> 
> 
> Yes, they're the same panels, magnets and all.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris!


----------



## Larry M

Chris,


How does one clean the EN4K material or avoid it from getting dirty?


Really cool material, but the sample I have which was in a draw some how got a small stain on it which got me thinking of how easily it can get dirty


----------



## dropzone7

Does SeymourAV ever run any type of sale or discounts?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21306124
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> How does one clean the EN4K material or avoid it from getting dirty?
> 
> 
> Really cool material, but the sample I have which was in a draw some how got a small stain on it which got me thinking of how easily it can get dirty



Hi Larry -


The material can be spot treated with dry techniques: tape, white vinyl eraser, or if any moisture is to be used it must either be distilled or steam. Otherwise, it will show rings. Usually steam and some rubbing with a white vinyl are my favorites. If it's really bad, however the fixed frame screens can be removed and put in the washing machine. Gentle cycle, mild detergant, and not with your red boxers. No dryer.


Last resort, the fixed frame screen material can be replaced, too.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7* /forum/post/21307336
> 
> 
> Does SeymourAV ever run any type of sale or discounts?



Not while I've been with them.


There are the occasional B-stock screens that show up, but they're rare.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## secondhander

In the next day or two I'll begin building my DIY seymour screen, thanks Chris for the precise cut, I haven't pulled it out of the tube yet. Will it need to be unrolled and "straightened" for a day before attaching it? In other words will it have a natural curl in it from being in the tube for a few weeks?


Also, my screen will be 104" wide, my father thinks I should add a couple of vertical support pieces to help prevent any warping, do you think it's necessary? I like to keep everything as minimal as possible. I'll be using poplar.


Thanks,

Jason


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *secondhander* /forum/post/21310747
> 
> 
> In the next day or two I'll begin building my DIY seymour screen, thanks Chris for the precise cut, I haven't pulled it out of the tube yet. Will it need to be unrolled and "straightened" for a day before attaching it? In other words will it have a natural curl in it from being in the tube for a few weeks?
> 
> 
> Also, my screen will be 104" wide, my father thinks I should add a couple of vertical support pieces to help prevent any warping, do you think it's necessary? I like to keep everything as minimal as possible. I'll be using poplar.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jason



You should leave it in the tube until you're ready to install it so it can keep its round shape. It'll still look a little ripply when you first unroll it but will easily tension flat when you staple or spline it.


At 104 you won't need to center support it unless you used 1x2 or something weak. 1x3 will be ok, and make sure to hang it from the top frame piece so the weight of the frame contributes to tension. If you used 1x4 they are great up to about 120" wide without adding center supports. And by center I don't mean dead center - space it out perhaps 1/3 and 2/3 width. Anything that's behind the image should be as dark as possible.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21312606
> 
> 
> At 104 you won't need to center support it unless you used 1x2 or something weak. 1x3 will be ok, and make sure to hang it from the top frame piece so the weight of the frame contributes to tension. If you used 1x4 they are great up to about 120" wide without adding center supports. And by center I don't mean dead center - space it out perhaps 1/3 and 2/3 width. Anything that's behind the image should be as dark as possible.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Chris, while we are on the subject. Would your 141" diagonal 2.35 AT fixed frame screen have any center supports? I'm still trying to decide between DIY or a finished screen from you guys. No center supports would be a plus for going with a finished screen I think.


----------



## secondhander




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21312606
> 
> 
> You should leave it in the tube until you're ready to install it so it can keep its round shape. It'll still look a little ripply when you first unroll it but will easily tension flat when you staple or spline it.
> 
> 
> At 104 you won't need to center support it unless you used 1x2 or something weak. 1x3 will be ok, and make sure to hang it from the top frame piece so the weight of the frame contributes to tension. If you used 1x4 they are great up to about 120" wide without adding center supports. And by center I don't mean dead center - space it out perhaps 1/3 and 2/3 width. Anything that's behind the image should be as dark as possible.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




I'll leave it in the tube until we're ready then, thanks Chris. I'll be using 1x4s so I won't use any center supports then.


Cheers


----------



## NicksHitachi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, while we are on the subject. Would your 141" diagonal 2.35 AT fixed frame screen have any center supports? I'm still trying to decide between DIY or a finished screen from you guys. No center supports would be a plus for going with a finished screen I think.



If you DIY just make sure you use two center supports @33% and 66% of width so as not to obstruct your center channel.


I tensioned mine pretty tight and sleep good at night knowing it has center support.


Also remember framing and how youll attach to wall when considering how rigid middle needs to be. The weight of the screen frame, box frame, and material together adds up.


Or buy a killer screen from Chris. I wouldnt hesitate to buy from SeymourAV again.....


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7* /forum/post/21312624
> 
> 
> Chris, while we are on the subject. Would your 141" diagonal 2.35 AT fixed frame screen have any center supports? I'm still trying to decide between DIY or a finished screen from you guys. No center supports would be a plus for going with a finished screen I think.



The Seymour AV fixed frame screen never has any center supports, spanning up to a 170" wide image. It was designed for as simple an installation as possible within a reasonable range of home theater sizes.


The Seymour-Screen Excellence fixed frame screens do have 1/3 and 2/3 supports on all but the smallest sizes. It was designed for professional installations to be scaled up to around 300" wide screens.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## azula

Hello Chris,


With a screen width of 110" (2.35 ratio), what should the finished edge width be if I'm using 1x4 oak frame?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *azula* /forum/post/21316444
> 
> 
> Hello Chris,
> 
> 
> With a screen width of 110" (2.35 ratio), what should the finished edge width be if I'm using 1x4 oak frame?



I'd recommend something lighter and less expensive than oak. Poplar is a good choice that's often easily available and straight.


For an image dimension of 110" x 46-3/4", the outer edges of the frame would be those plus 7" (3.5" x 2) for a 1x4 = 117" x 53-3/4". You might consider simplifying it by doing 90 degree butt joints instead of mitering 45 degrees. Scale it up or down depending on your ambitions.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## turls




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gsearles* /forum/post/21300414
> 
> 
> Anyone with online access read it and care to share a synopsis of the review?



I have read it, it is not in front of me, the biggest thing I got out of the article was additional confirmation of what I've heard that gain numbers on weave screens are inflated. I think the reviewer ended up with about .7. Don't quote me on that because I don't have the article in front of me and I'm kind of incredulous the article didn't create more discussion in this thread at this point, unless people just haven't gotten it yet.


I'm trying to go 13'-14' wide, and AT is pretty much set in stone, so I'm very concerned about "misleading" (no offense Chris, I understand the rationale) specs. I don't think there is a good value projector at my screen size that will light up a weave. You are giving up a heck of a lot of tech to go used also. I think there will be something right around the corner that will fit the bill at the price I want to pay that will be significantly less expensive than viable options right now. I don't want to screw up, but I don't want to wait indefinitely either.


Reading that article sure makes it even more interesting that a certain manufacturer (*not SeymourAV*) practically refuses to send samples out.


----------



## Bulldogger

 http://www.screenexcellence.com/uplo...ur-highres.pdf Widescreen Review's evaluation.


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bulldogger* /forum/post/21327143
> 
> http://www.screenexcellence.com/uplo...ur-highres.pdf Widescreen Review's evaluation.



Thanks


That was a roller coaster of a read...I'm buying it, I'm not buying it, I'm buying it, I'm not buying it, I'm probably buying it










My projector should be here Monday so I'll project on the samples Chris was kind enough to have to me extremely quickly I might add unlike SoMe X company who hasn't even responded to me after multiple attempts to just get a sample


Chris, do you recommend I put a black backing on the material as I project a test image?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21327511
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> That was a roller coaster of a read...I'm buying it, I'm not buying it, I'm buying it, I'm not buying it, I'm probably buying it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My projector should be here Monday so I'll project on the samples Chris was kind enough to have to me extremely quickly I might add unlike SoMe X company who hasn't even responded to me after multiple attempts to just get a sample
> 
> 
> Chris, do you recommend I put a black backing on the material as I project a test image?



You can also download the pdf from the US site here. It might be faster:
http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/press.asp 


Definitely put something black behind the samples to evaluate them. That way you don't get light bounce-back which can create false artifacts.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21329731
> 
> 
> You can also download the pdf from the US site here. It might be faster:
> http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/press.asp
> 
> 
> Definitely put something black behind the samples to evaluate them. That way you don't get light bounce-back which can create false artifacts.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris, crossing my fingers the size I want looks great with the EN4K


I watched your YT video from 2011 Cedia and you mentioned the masking panels are both AT and non AT. The one you displayed was non AT, what does the AT one look like? Does the color vary from the screen frame material?


----------



## ScottyH

I got my H115 screen up awhile back


Excellent quality! Assembly was easy. A minor wrinkle in the screen was gone within a day of being tensioned.


First row is about 10' away and what I see is a brilliant picture using my old HD750 projo. The pattern is only visible when about 5' away. Cant wait to use the X70 on it!


I will never use a non AT screen again. Amazing


----------



## secondhander

Hey Chris,


I built my DIY screen on the weekend, it turned out awesome, I have a very minor wrinkle in one corner (my own fault) I can easily fix but other than that I'm super happy with the screen material. I did some tests with the panny 4K and it's just brilliant. I posted a step by step of the weekends work with pics in my build thread. Took us quite a while to do and not as good as your DIY PDF file of instructions, but I got 'er done. Wrapping corners is hard stuff.


Cheers & thanks again


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *secondhander* /forum/post/21334254
> 
> 
> Hey Chris,
> 
> 
> I built my DIY screen on the weekend, it turned out awesome, I have a very minor wrinkle in one corner (my own fault) I can easily fix but other than that I'm super happy with the screen material. I did some tests with the panny 4K and it's just brilliant. I posted a step by step of the weekends work with pics in my build thread. Took us quite a while to do and not as good as your DIY PDF file of instructions, but I got 'er done. Wrapping corners is hard stuff.
> 
> 
> Cheers & thanks again



Be ready to have to retension it again about 6 mounth or some. Mine was good and tight when I made it, then down to road it had some wrinkle either do to screen stretch or wood shrink, probably both. After restretching it has been good.


----------



## secondhander




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/21336252
> 
> 
> Be ready to have to retension it again about 6 mounth or some. Mine was good and tight when I made it, then down to road it had some wrinkle either do to screen stretch or wood shrink, probably both. After restretching it has been good.



Thx for the heads up, I'll expect to have to do that then.


Cheers


----------



## mv038856




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *turls* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> ...the biggest thing I got out of the article was additional confirmation of what I've heard that gain numbers on weave screens are inflated. I think the reviewer ended up with about .7.



Hi Chris,


the review for the 4K material mentions two possible drawbacks of woven screen materials. One is the gain that might not be as high as advertized (or at least not comparable to figures of not-AT screens) and the light leakage within the screen material. I was wondering, how Center Stage XD measures in these categories?


I currently use a DA-Lite screen with DA-MAT High Contrast material which is specified with a gain of 0.85. I was hoping that with your screen material, I could boost brightness simply through its 1.2 gain. This, plus placing my projector (a JVC RS60) at max. zoom (going from a 2:1 to 1.4:1 projection ratio) and using a recently acquired ISCO III L lens should allow me to go from my 80" wide 16:9 screen to a 130" cinemascope curved screen with a Center Stage XD material, so I thought. In my calculations, I even ended up with a higher brightness on the bigger then AT screen taking higher gain, max. zoom and the anamorphic lens into acount. I therefore even considered using an even bigger screen. Since I enjoy 3D projection, light output clearly is an important factor. So, what's the non-AT-comparable gain of a Center Stage XD?


Assuming that the surface of a woven material might never be 100% plane, the idea that some light might be reflected sideways appears to be reasonable. Did you ever get feedback regarding that effect from a customer?


I do have a sample of the CSXD material, but I wouldn't know how I could measure its gain myself. When I taped the sample to my current screen some time ago, I didn't notice any sideways light leakage within the fabric.


Cheers!


Markus


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

The few reviews I have seen seem to put the XD material at closer to a 1.0 gain in the real world.


If Chris could come up with a 2.0 AT screen he could be a millionare










So get to work on that tongiht and see what you can come up with. Thread covered in tinny microscopic mirrors should do it "its in the mirrors".....


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mv038856* /forum/post/21337105
> 
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> 
> the review for the 4K material mentions two possible drawbacks of woven screen materials. One is the gain that might not be as high as advertized (or at least not comparable to figures of not-AT screens) and the light leakage within the screen material. I was wondering, how Center Stage XD measures in these categories?
> 
> 
> I currently use a DA-Lite screen with DA-MAT High Contrast material which is specified with a gain of 0.85. I was hoping that with your screen material, I could boost brightness simply through its 1.2 gain. This, plus placing my projector (a JVC RS60) at max. zoom (going from a 2:1 to 1.4:1 projection ratio) and using a recently acquired ISCO III L lens should allow me to go from my 80" wide 16:9 screen to a 130" cinemascope curved screen with a Center Stage XD material, so I thought. In my calculations, I even ended up with a higher brightness on the bigger then AT screen taking higher gain, max. zoom and the anamorphic lens into acount. I therefore even considered using an even bigger screen. Since I enjoy 3D projection, light output clearly is an important factor. So, what's the non-AT-comparable gain of a Center Stage XD?
> 
> 
> Assuming that the surface of a woven material might never be 100% plane, the idea that some light might be reflected sideways appears to be reasonable. Did you ever get feedback regarding that effect from a customer?
> 
> 
> I do have a sample of the CSXD material, but I wouldn't know how I could measure its gain myself. When I taped the sample to my current screen some time ago, I didn't notice any sideways light leakage within the fabric.
> 
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> 
> Markus



Hi Markus -


I've measured the ANSI contrast ratio on a checkerboard pattern and the Center Stage XD was 99% of the reference solid target. Generally cross-pixel light interaction is a function of the thread coating and weave structure. The XD benefits by being both coated with vinyl and featuring a fairly flat weave.


When I measured SR their CP2 was about 92% ANSI of reference. While it benefits from a coated thread, they have a thicker multi-dimensional weave that can cause diffusion.


The Enlightor-4K has uncoated threads but an exceptionally flat weave surface. We've never had anyone detect an issue like in the review. It's possible that there were optical, lens, or panel issues that were more visible on our 4K screen versus his other screen on hand. Every screen will highlight or downplay various aspects of the projector's flavor and the room, which is why there are so many choices.


You can evaluate it for yourself by playing white credits on a black background.


Gain ratings aren't just all over the place with AT materials. In fact, look around at measurements of non-AT materials. Glancing through Jeff's chart, I see -27%, -28% and -59% of published ratings. I don't see a rating for the Da-Mat high contrast material, so I can't say what the comparitive difference would be between the XD and it. I'd recommend putting it up on your screen with something dark behind it, project on and let us know what you see.


Not taking benchmarks into consideration, the XD will measure in the .95 to 1.05 range. Benchmarks say it is 13-19% brighter than 1.1, and 15% brighter than 1.16. Benchmarked against the HP it is a 1.24 and against the Starbright 7 it is a 2.3.


Since you have a screen to compare it to, zoom it to about 97.5" wide for a 16:9 ratio 3D and with the sample up see if it's brighter or not and if that's a problem. If you need a 24x24, they are only $20.


I wouldn't pay much attention to FtL targets, as they vary wildly to all the equipment and personal preferences. Show me a system spec'd for a stackup of all the worst case issues such as bulb aging, and at the top of the range, and I'll show you a guy taking ibuprofen and wearing sunglasses.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/21337310
> 
> 
> If Chris could come up with a 2.0 AT screen he could be a millionare



Benchmarked against the Starbright 7, we're already past that at 2.3.










You want that in an unbenchmarked rating? Eek, not sure if you'd like to look at mirrors, but anything's possible.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21338566
> 
> 
> Benchmarked against the Starbright 7, we're already past that at 2.3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want that in an unbenchmarked rating? Eek, not sure if you'd like to look at mirrors, but anything's possible.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I watched your YT video from 2011 Cedia and you mentioned the masking panels are both AT and non AT. The one you displayed was non AT, what does the AT one look like? Does the color vary from the screen frame material?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21340714
> 
> 
> I watched your YT video from 2011 Cedia and you mentioned the masking panels are both AT and non AT. The one you displayed was non AT, what does the AT one look like? Does the color vary from the screen frame material?



Yes the AT material is a black woven material. In a lit up room it's much less black than the non-AT velvet we put on the leading edge to absorb the overscan pixels. In a dark room, it looks completely black.


Pictures are on this page:
http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21343795
> 
> 
> Yes the AT material is a black woven material. In a lit up room it's much less black than the non-AT velvet we put on the leading edge to absorb the overscan pixels. In a dark room, it looks completely black.
> 
> 
> Pictures are on this page:
> http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris


If my speakers are between the masking panels, does it matter if I don't go with the AT version?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21344103
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris
> 
> 
> If my speakers are between the masking panels, does it matter if I don't go with the AT version?



Nope. If your speakers are not behind the panels you can get either type.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## mv038856




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21338471
> 
> 
> Hi Markus -
> 
> 
> I've measured the ANSI contrast ratio on a checkerboard pattern and the Center Stage XD was 99% of the reference solid target. Generally cross-pixel light interaction is a function of the thread coating and weave structure. The XD benefits by being both coated with vinyl and featuring a fairly flat weave.
> 
> 
> When I measured SR their CP2 was about 92% ANSI of reference. While it benefits from a coated thread, they have a thicker multi-dimensional weave that can cause diffusion.
> 
> 
> The Enlightor-4K has uncoated threads but an exceptionally flat weave surface. We've never had anyone detect an issue like in the review. It's possible that there were optical, lens, or panel issues that were more visible on our 4K screen versus his other screen on hand. Every screen will highlight or downplay various aspects of the projector's flavor and the room, which is why there are so many choices.
> 
> 
> You can evaluate it for yourself by playing white credits on a black background.
> 
> 
> Gain ratings aren't just all over the place with AT materials. In fact, look around at measurements of non-AT materials. Glancing through Jeff's chart, I see -27%, -28% and -59% of published ratings. I don't see a rating for the Da-Mat high contrast material, so I can't say what the comparitive difference would be between the XD and it. I'd recommend putting it up on your screen with something dark behind it, project on and let us know what you see.
> 
> 
> Not taking benchmarks into consideration, the XD will measure in the .95 to 1.05 range. Benchmarks say it is 13-19% brighter than 1.1, and 15% brighter than 1.16. Benchmarked against the HP it is a 1.24 and against the Starbright 7 it is a 2.3.
> 
> 
> Since you have a screen to compare it to, zoom it to about 97.5" wide for a 16:9 ratio 3D and with the sample up see if it's brighter or not and if that's a problem. If you need a 24x24, they are only $20.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't pay much attention to FtL targets, as they vary wildly to all the equipment and personal preferences. Show me a system spec'd for a stackup of all the worst case issues such as bulb aging, and at the top of the range, and I'll show you a guy taking ibuprofen and wearing sunglasses.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Hi Chris,


thanks for the reply!


I dug a little in one of my drawers and found my Spyder3 color sensor. Using the ColorHCFR software, I did some measurements with my Da-Lite DA-MAT HighContrast and the 20"x20" CenterStageXD sample I had acquired some time ago.


I don't know if the way I did the comparison is valid, but that's how I did it...










I ran the primary and secondary color measurements on both screen surfaces. ColorHCFR shows for every color the ftL, among other things. While I couldn't interpret the absolute ftL values, the relative ftL values looked interesting. The ftL values vary between colors (white of course being the 'color' with the highest value), the brightest having a ftL value more than 11 times that of the darkest (blue). What was surprising to me was that the ftL values of the CenterStageXD were at least twice as high, compared to the corresponding color ftLs from my DA-MAT HighContrast screen.


If I translate that into a relative gain rating between the two surfaces, the CenterStageXD would get a *1.6 (!)* gain rating, compared to the brightness of the now officially 0.8 rated DA-MAT HighContrast surface.


Is my thinking correct here? Is ftL a linear scale? When I received the sample, I only used it on film material. Now that I projected test patterns on it, the increase in brightness is much more apparent.


Twice the brightness would mean, I can double the screen surface. All other factors (e.g. zoom factor) fixed, I could go from my 80"x45" 16:9 screen to a 112"x63" 16:9 screen (3600 sqinch to 7056 sqinch) without loosing brightness. If I went for a C130 or C140 with 54.9" resp. 59.1" screen height, I would expect a 16:9 image to be 10 to 20% brighter (5350 resp. 6200 sqinch). Using a high quality anamorpic lens, like my ISCO IIIL, I should be able to get most of the light energy "stretched" into the cinemascope format. Since the C130s/C140s cinemascope screen surface exceeds the 7200 sqinch (twice my current screen surface of 3600 sqinch), the brightness would be lower. Since I have to reduce the throw ratio anyway (the room simply isn't long enough...), going from a throw ratio of 1.8 to 1.4 should increase brightness by another 20%, making screen surfaces of up to 8640 sqinch as bright as my current screen. Therefore, a C130 with its 7740 sqinch screen surface should be safe, even a C140 with 8970 sqinch should not be recognizably darker. Again, is my thinking here correct?


Thanks!


Markus


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Just a thought - when you measured, was the CenterStage material in front of your (non-AT) screen? If so, that could make it appear brighter than it is (weave holes are reflecting light back that they ordinarily wouldn't).


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mv038856* /forum/post/21409768
> 
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> 
> thanks for the reply!
> 
> 
> I dug a little in one of my drawers and found my Spyder3 color sensor. Using the ColorHCFR software, I did some measurements with my Da-Lite DA-MAT HighContrast and the 20"x20" CenterStageXD sample I had acquired some time ago.
> 
> 
> I don't know if the way I did the comparison is valid, but that's how I did it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ran the primary and secondary color measurements on both screen surfaces. ColorHCFR shows for every color the ftL, among other things. While I couldn't interpret the absolute ftL values, the relative ftL values looked interesting. The ftL values vary between colors (white of course being the 'color' with the highest value), the brightest having a ftL value more than 11 times that of the darkest (blue). What was surprising to me was that the ftL values of the CenterStageXD were at least twice as high, compared to the corresponding color ftLs from my DA-MAT HighContrast screen.
> 
> 
> If I translate that into a relative gain rating between the two surfaces, the CenterStageXD would get a *1.6 (!)* gain rating, compared to the brightness of the now officially 0.8 rated DA-MAT HighContrast surface.
> 
> 
> Is my thinking correct here? Is ftL a linear scale? When I received the sample, I only used it on film material. Now that I projected test patterns on it, the increase in brightness is much more apparent.
> 
> 
> Twice the brightness would mean, I can double the screen surface. All other factors (e.g. zoom factor) fixed, I could go from my 80"x45" 16:9 screen to a 112"x63" 16:9 screen (3600 sqinch to 7056 sqinch) without loosing brightness. If I went for a C130 or C140 with 54.9" resp. 59.1" screen height, I would expect a 16:9 image to be 10 to 20% brighter (5350 resp. 6200 sqinch). Using a high quality anamorpic lens, like my ISCO IIIL, I should be able to get most of the light energy "stretched" into the cinemascope format. Since the C130s/C140s cinemascope screen surface exceeds the 7200 sqinch (twice my current screen surface of 3600 sqinch), the brightness would be lower. Since I have to reduce the throw ratio anyway (the room simply isn't long enough...), going from a throw ratio of 1.8 to 1.4 should increase brightness by another 20%, making screen surfaces of up to 8640 sqinch as bright as my current screen. Therefore, a C130 with its 7740 sqinch screen surface should be safe, even a C140 with 8970 sqinch should not be recognizably darker. Again, is my thinking here correct?
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Markus



Hi Markus -


Generally what you're measuring sounds correct. If the XD has the exact same color temperature as the Da-Mat, the you'd see the FtL measurements scale the same for each color. Or if you can take an RGB or color temp measurement of white, they'd be the same. Your gain measurement is higher than the "range of reality," a happy place I like to stay in where reality checks from other materials and experiences exist. Gray surfaces aren't used as reference targets because not only are they hard to get as perfect, but they will result in less accurate calculations when your reference is in the denominator. Going up from low swings the results more, like when projectors start getting into the million+ contrast ratings, even though the difference in the denominator is 0.000001 FtL, or otherwise invisible.


FtL is a linear scale (lumen / sq. ft), but how the eye perceives brightness is not linear. Therefore, 10FtL does not appear half as bright as 20FtL.


So, while technically twice the brightness would allow you to double the screen area, keep in mind what FtL is your reference target for what is comfortable for you in your experience. Measure FtL with white on the Da-Mat, then the XD, and you'll know how many sq. in. you can scale an XD screen and keep the FtL the same.


Lastly, viewing angle is for most folks a more important aspect than luminance. You're talking a wide range here, from your current 80" wide 1.78 to a possible 140" wide scope image. Maybe hanging up a couple sheets or temporary surfaces and running a quick range of content will have you narrow down what you want.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## NORLL

This question might have been ask earlier, but I could not find it on the forums;


What is the difference, if any, between the Seymour AV Center Stage XD material and the Enlightor 4K used in the Seymour Screen Excellence? Is it the same material under different brand names?


----------



## BobL

No they are not the same, the XD is similar to the Enlightor 2K.


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NORLL* /forum/post/21420192
> 
> 
> This question might have been ask earlier, but I could not find it on the forums;
> 
> 
> What is the difference, if any, between the Seymour AV Center Stage XD material and the Enlightor 4K used in the Seymour Screen Excellence? Is it the same material under different brand names?



Very different materials


I have both samples in my under construction theater.


From a touch/feel/see perspective the XD is a vinyl like material with visible weaves and pattern in a bright white color. The EN4K is a soft fabric material with no visible weave but does have an odd pattern and is an off white color (gray tint when compared to the XD)


When projected on (RS45) the XD is considerebly brighter. There is a clear difference in brightness between the 2. I can't say one is sharper than the other. On bright white scenes the XD was a bit overpowering and if you're looking for it, you can see the weave at about 15ft. Under regular scenes I could not see the weave pattern on the XD until I was 3-5 ft away if at all. The EN4K under bright scenes was not overpowering nor could you see the pattern up close or at seating distance.


----------



## Ericglo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21421872
> 
> 
> Very different materials
> 
> 
> I have both samples in my under construction theater.
> 
> 
> From a touch/feel/see perspective the XD is a vinyl like material with visible weaves and pattern in a bright white color. The EN4K is a soft fabric material with no visible weave but does have an odd pattern and is an off white color (gray tint when compared to the XD)
> 
> 
> When projected on (RS45) the XD is considerebly brighter. There is a clear difference in brightness between the 2. I can't say one is sharper than the other. On bright white scenes the XD was a bit overpowering and if you're looking for it, you can see the weave at about 15ft. Under regular scenes I could not see the weave pattern on the XD until I was 3-5 ft away if at all. The EN4K under bright scenes was not overpowering nor could you see the pattern up close or at seating distance.



I am going to have to disagree with that. My eyes aren't 20/20 anymore and I can see the weave at IIRC 8 ft. If I get a chance, then I would like to retest, but that is what I remember. The EN4k is essentially a solid screen. Steve Smith and I thought we were looking at a solid screen when we walked up to it at Cedia. I think until Cris told us we didn't know that it was AT. The EN4K and the SMX 4k screens are the first AT screens that I have seen that I would not have any problem using instead of a solid screen.


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ericglo* /forum/post/21422046
> 
> 
> I am going to have to disagree with that. My eyes aren't 20/20 anymore and I can see the weave at IIRC 8 ft. If I get a chance, then I would like to retest, but that is what I remember. The EN4k is essentially a solid screen. Steve Smith and I thought we were looking at a solid screen when we walked up to it at Cedia. I think until Cris told us we didn't know that it was AT. The EN4K and the SMX 4k screens are the first AT screens that I have seen that I would not have any problem using instead of a solid screen.



I guess if you're really looking for the weave you can see it from a few feet away on the XD, but I have 20/20 and didn't notice it at 15ft. Please note this is while watching a movie.


The EN4K does look solid, but it is not a smooth screen nor is the texture at all visible during movie watching


----------



## mv038856




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/21411580
> 
> 
> Just a thought - when you measured, was the CenterStage material in front of your (non-AT) screen? If so, that could make it appear brighter than it is (weave holes are reflecting light back that they ordinarily wouldn't).



Hi,


I did two measurements, one with the sample directly in front of the Da-Lite Screen and one with black velvet behind the sample. The measurements did not differ significantly. In fact, the measurements with the velvet behind the sample were even slightly higher...which doesn't make sense to me. Therefore, I classified the difference as "measurements tolerances".










Cheers!


Markus


----------



## mv038856




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21414840
> 
> 
> Hi Markus -
> 
> Lastly, viewing angle is for most folks a more important aspect than luminance. You're talking a wide range here, from your current 80" wide 1.78 to a possible 140" wide scope image. Maybe hanging up a couple sheets or temporary surfaces and running a quick range of content will have you narrow down what you want.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Chris,


I simulated the vieving angle by moving closer to the screen, up to one screen width. I did like the immersion into the picture, especially with 3D material.


In contrast to the discussion that is currently going on in this thread, I didn't notice the weave of the XD sample at 6 ft distance when watching a movie. It is just strange, having a bright and more brilliant square in your screen...










Unfortunately, my new home theater (with the big AT screen) won't be realized within the next 6 month or so... Maybe, there will be a 4K AT material with a gain comparable to the XD when my screen order is due.










Cheers!


Markus


----------



## DouglasCleary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ericglo* /forum/post/21422046
> 
> 
> I am going to have to disagree with that. My eyes aren't 20/20 anymore and I can see the weave at IIRC 8 ft. If I get a chance, then I would like to retest, but that is what I remember. The EN4k is essentially a solid screen. Steve Smith and I thought we were looking at a solid screen when we walked up to it at Cedia. I think until Cris told us we didn't know that it was AT. The EN4K and the SMX 4k screens are the first AT screens that I have seen that I would not have any problem using instead of a solid screen.



I like the screen with my RS2 but I can see the weave at 11ft on bright areas in scenes. Watching a hockey game, for example, I can definitely see the weave. I would still buy it again, great screen for the price.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

Same here I can see the weave at 9' on white scenes when I look for it, don't know if anyone else does. EN4K would be cool but not worth it for the price difference, until a + gain AT screen comes out I don't see me switching.


----------



## secondhander

I can slightly see the diagonal weave in white scenes only (From about 10' away, nothing further) but it's not a distraction to me, only a tad when watching hockey games as it's the only content I tend to watch that's mostly white throughout. It's something you only can notice though if you know it's there otherwise even if you did see it you'd think it's just some grain or maybe some slight pixelation if anything.. It's a superb product though and I wouldn't trade it for anything.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DouglasCleary* /forum/post/21429664
> 
> 
> I like the screen with my RS2 but I can see the weave at 11ft on bright areas in scenes. Watching a hockey game, for example, I can definitely see the weave. I would still buy it again, great screen for the price.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/21429854
> 
> 
> Same here I can see the weave at 9' on white scenes when I look for it, don't know if anyone else does. EN4K would be cool but not worth it for the price difference, until a + gain AT screen comes out I don't see me switching.



From 11.5' I could see the weave every now and then on panning scenes of things like clouds. Since I wanted to reduce my viewing distance (10' to a 106" diag.) I switched to the Enlightor 4K. I am very pleased with the image and the brightness. I am using a JVC RS45 in normal (low) lamp with the iris closed all the way down. The image is very bright (65 hours on lamp).


----------



## Martin G

Mike- I am planning a 120" wide 2.37 Enlightor 4K screen. 18 ft throw distance, seating 9 ft and 14 ft. Do you think the JVC RS 45/55 has enough lumens? What other PJ would you recommend with this size AT screen with a lower gain?


----------



## ScottyH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Martin G* /forum/post/21435338
> 
> 
> Mike- I am planning a 120" wide 2.37 Enlightor 4K screen. 18 ft throw distance, seating 9 ft and 14 ft. Do you think the JVC RS 45/55 has enough lumens? What other PJ would you recommend with this size AT screen with a lower gain?



It would do it with ease in my opinion. I just got my X70 set up on a 115" wide & the iris down to -11. Anything more than that seems to be hard on my eyes.


----------



## bassage

I have a noob question. I am thinking of getting a screen with SeymourAV Centerstage XD AT screen material, but if I do this I would need to hang the screen about 7 inches from the wall to get my speakers behind it. I won't be sinking the speakers into the wall. Will that work or does the screen have to be flush with the wall? I'm just hoping that no light will go through the screen and reflect back to the screen from behind. I don't know much about AT screens, so I have no idea if that will be a problem.


----------



## Tamas

Hello all a quick question...how many of you installed grommets as a DIY install and how did you do it and how did it turn out.


Thanks in advance.


Tom


----------



## deromax

bassage, you will need to have a dark colored wall behind or alternatively use some blackout fabric at the back of the screen to prevent reflexions.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bassage* /forum/post/21435534
> 
> 
> I have a noob question. I am thinking of getting a screen with SeymourAV Centerstage XD AT screen material, but if I do this I would need to hang the screen about 7 inches from the wall to get my speakers behind it. I won't be sinking the speakers into the wall. Will that work or does the screen have to be flush with the wall? I'm just hoping that no light will go through the screen and reflect back to the screen from behind. I don't know much about AT screens, so I have no idea if that will be a problem.



They have a black backing that they can put on the back of the screen.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bassage* /forum/post/21435534
> 
> 
> I have a noob question. I am thinking of getting a screen with SeymourAV Centerstage XD AT screen material, but if I do this I would need to hang the screen about 7 inches from the wall to get my speakers behind it. I won't be sinking the speakers into the wall. Will that work or does the screen have to be flush with the wall? I'm just hoping that no light will go through the screen and reflect back to the screen from behind. I don't know much about AT screens, so I have no idea if that will be a problem.



As long as the surfaces are reasonably dark and nonreflective behind the screen, you should be fine without the secondary black backing. As long as the screen isn't a couple feet from the wall, the frame should block any possible secondary image from the furthest off-axis seats. Mine is eight feet from the back wall, so yeah, I needed the secondary black backing layer to kill the back wall image that the side seats would see. You can also add it later if you find you need it, so I'd vote to try without. Use paint and dark acoustic treatments first.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## bassage

My wall is a lighter tan/beige color, so I might need to put something back there. If I do end up doing an AT screen, I will do like you said and try without first probably.


----------



## bfisherjr

 Here is a link to some pics of my theater (a little outdated but the key ones are still there). I did exactly as you want to do... I hung the Seymour screen out from the wall about a foot and fit my speakers behind it.


My front wall is covered in acoustic insulation and then covered in a velvety acoustic fabric... It absorbs all the reflections. My speakers are on shelves I built onto the walls. Works great. Been a few years, I would have to look up links to my sources if interested. Let me know if you want more details.


This has been an awesome setup.... Still blows my mind a couple years after installing it.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bassage* /forum/post/21438611
> 
> 
> My wall is a lighter tan/beige color, so I might need to put something back there. If I do end up doing an AT screen, I will do like you said and try without first probably.



That doesn't sound dark enough to me. I'd try paint or dark acoustic treatments, but "lighter tan/beige" is likely too light without the black backing.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Martin G* /forum/post/21435338
> 
> 
> Mike- I am planning a 120" wide 2.37 Enlightor 4K screen. 18 ft throw distance, seating 9 ft and 14 ft. Do you think the JVC RS 45/55 has enough lumens? What other PJ would you recommend with this size AT screen with a lower gain?



(RS45) I shot a 120" wide 16:9 image on the 4K material at about 15ft and the image looked great. As I said earlier the XD was brighter but certainly nothing wrong with the 4K material in terms of brightness.


----------



## bassage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder* /forum/post/21436466
> 
> 
> They have a black backing that they can put on the back of the screen.



So they can put this on for you before they send it? Or is it something you have to buy separately and place it behind the screen yourself?


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bassage* /forum/post/21443887
> 
> 
> So they can put this on for you before they send it? Or is it something you have to buy separately and place it behind the screen yourself?



It is a separate material you put on while you are assembling the screen


EN4K includes the black backing and the Center Stage XD is an add on.


If you go to Screen Excellence's site and Seymour's site they have installation instructions that show you how it is done


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bassage* /forum/post/21443887
> 
> 
> So they can put this on for you before they send it? Or is it something you have to buy separately and place it behind the screen yourself?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21444238
> 
> 
> It is a separate material you put on while you are assembling the screen
> 
> 
> EN4K includes the black backing and the Center Stage XD is an add on.
> 
> 
> If you go to Screen Excellence's site and Seymour's site they have installation instructions that show you how it is done



Larry is correct. I bet by now Larry has read everything he can get his hands on, regarding the Enlightor 4K.


----------



## toref





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5* /forum/post/21432839
> 
> 
> I switched to the Enlightor 4K. I am very pleased with the image and the brightness. I am using a JVC RS45 in normal (low) lamp with the iris closed all the way down. The image is very bright (65 hours on lamp).



Interesting. Are you happy with this combination for 3D material as well?


----------



## anonuser3

I am planning my screen and screen wall, and had originally planned on using Center Stage XD. The problem that I have is getting 6" between the speakers and the screen. Is anyone placing their screen closer than 6" from the speakers? If so, do you notice any problems with sound quality/transmission? I could probably get 2-3" max -- would that be enough? Any input is appreciated. Thanks.


Rob


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Check starting around post 1024:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...e#post18940013 


A few people mentioned 2 or 3" and it worked fine for them.


----------



## deromax

I have no problem with my speakers very close to the screen. Big subwoofers and/or front firing ports might be an issue because of larger air movements.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toref* /forum/post/21450422
> 
> 
> Interesting. Are you happy with this combination for 3D material as well?



Can't really answer that. I don't really have an interest in 3D, but I might have to get into it just to be able to answer questions just like this.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *anonuser3* /forum/post/21450702
> 
> 
> I am planning my screen and screen wall, and had originally planned on using Center Stage XD. The problem that I have is getting 6" between the speakers and the screen. Is anyone placing their screen closer than 6" from the speakers? If so, do you notice any problems with sound quality/transmission? I could probably get 2-3" max -- would that be enough? Any input is appreciated. Thanks.
> 
> 
> Rob



Should not be a problem when using a woven screen.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *anonuser3* /forum/post/21450702
> 
> 
> I am planning my screen and screen wall, and had originally planned on using Center Stage XD. The problem that I have is getting 6" between the speakers and the screen. Is anyone placing their screen closer than 6" from the speakers? If so, do you notice any problems with sound quality/transmission? I could probably get 2-3" max -- would that be enough? Any input is appreciated. Thanks.
> 
> 
> Rob



With perforated vinyl screens, they need 6-12" minimum spacing to shift their comb filtering and lobing from the midrange up into the treble. With woven screens, any measurable comb filtering starts in the treble and increasing airspace effectively removes it. The Center Stage XD has only a 1" recommended space between the screen and speakers and was designed to hang right over in-wall speakers. Any speaker/screen distance effect that's measurable is around 20kHz and so narrow a bandwidth (1/24 octave) as to be inaudible.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## anonuser3

Great. Thanks for the info.


----------



## titch--

Hey guys


Im lookin to pick some XD material from SeymourAV and was wonder from the guys that have the epson 8350 what degree of tilt did you find that worked best for you? 15? 20?


Projectors at 14' and Im sitting at 12'


----------



## chriscmore

As long as you follow the methodology of up to 20 degree tilt or whatever fits on the roll as the screen size increases, it will be 100% projector proof.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## titch--

Hey thanks Chris


Ill be sending you a email here quick for a quote


cheers


----------



## Larry M

In case anyone was wondering the difference in screen gain between XD and EN4K


This is with my cell phone. EN4K on the left and XD on the right










JVS RS45 projecting about 125" wide at probably 20ft away


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21600534
> 
> 
> In case anyone was wondering the difference in screen gain between XD and EN4K
> 
> 
> This is with my cell phone. EN4K on the left and XD on the right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JVS RS45 projecting about 125" wide at probably 20ft away



Are you still trying to decide between screens?


----------



## Glenn Baumann











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5* /forum/post/21609723
> 
> 
> Are you still trying to decide between screens?



I am not Larry M but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Expess last night!










But on a serious note, I too am trying to decide between the EN4K and XD in a 120" wide scope size lit with a JVC RS45 from 16 ft and sitting 11.5 to 12 feet away.


Still trying to determine if it is worth spending all that extra dough on the EN4K as opposed to the XD?










For me it is all about the lack of screen texture with the EN4K but the XD helps a bit with brightness! It is just so much more money to make the leap to the EN4K!










I suppose going with the smoother EN4K might help future proof against any future Super High Res projector purchase possibly interacting in a negative manner. A high quality screen purchase should be a LONG term invetsment I would presume... at least I am trying to convince my self of that to help justify that VERY big expense!



...Glenn : )


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/21610725
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not Larry M but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Expess last night!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But on a serious note, I too am trying to decide between the EN4K and XD in a 120" wide scope size lit with a JVC RS45 from 16 ft and sitting 11.5 to 12 feet away.
> 
> 
> Still trying to determine if it is worth spending all that extra dough on the EN4K as opposed to the XD?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me it is all about the lack of screen texture with the EN4K but the XD helps a bit with brightness! It is just so much more money to make the leap to the EN4K!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose going with the smoother EN4K might help future proof against any future Super High Res projector purchase possibly interacting in a negative manner. A high quality screen purchase should be a LONG term invetsment I would presume... at least I am trying to convince my self of that to help justify that VERY big expense!
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn : )



Glenn,


My recommendations would be to come to the Dark sideboth figuratively and literally. As you see in my post above the XD material is quite a bit brighter than the EN4K however I still ordered the EN4K in 120 16:9.


If you want to wait about 6-8 months I can tell you exactly how it will look with an RS45 or hell you're in LI so you can stop by










My reasoning for going with the EN4K despite the rather large price variance were as follows:


My first reason is the frame on the EN4K is just beastly. I'm sure the XD frame is great but I tend to overdo things and the EN4K frame is overdone!



















This is all I opened of the box to see how black the material is and it is BLACK. The scratch you see in the picture is magnified by the flash. I'm not sure how it got there because it was packaged very nicely. You can't really see the scratch in person and I'm not thinking it will be a problem if the projector is over scanned on it.


My second reason is the 4K material, even though it is less bright I am confident my next projector whether it be 2 or 4 years from now will be 4K and a brighter technology. If I would have went with the XD I know in a couple of years I would be stuck with a screen that would be limiting my projectors capabilities. Do it once, do it right.now if a 4K material comes out with higher gain then oh well.


My 3rd reason was the black backing. With the XD this is an extra expense and is something that would possibly benefit me since I have Definitive Technology Super Tower speakers. The speakers aren't shiny but they're not dull either so not worth the chance.


My 4th reason was that I ordered the screen early in my construction phase so I haven't completely blown my budget away. Had this been 4 months from now and I was trying to limit the financial damage I may have thought otherwise and regretted it over the long run.


----------



## Larry M

Chris,


Since I won't be installing my screen for a few months, do you have any special instructions on storage? Everything is still in the box as delivered but is it safe to store in the basement or garage?


Right now in the house and the wife doesn't seem too pleased that an 8' box is there


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Larry M,


Where are you located?


I am on the South Shore in Western Suffolk!



...Glenn : )


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/21615805
> 
> 
> Larry M,
> 
> 
> Where are you located?
> 
> 
> I am on the South Shore in Western Suffolk!
> 
> 
> ...Glenn : )



Bergen County NJ just outside Suffern NY, Franklin Lakes NJ, Paramus NJ


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/21615805
> 
> 
> Larry M,
> 
> 
> Where are you located?
> 
> 
> I am on the South Shore in Western Suffolk!
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn : )



I think you will really like the Enlightor 4K. If we can help you, give us a call.


----------



## ADDUpstate

Ditto this response... to the letter.


Just put mine up this past weekend, and it's GREAT!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/21614936
> 
> 
> Glenn,
> 
> 
> My recommendations would be to come to the Dark sideboth figuratively and literally. As you see in my post above the XD material is quite a bit brighter than the EN4K however I still ordered the EN4K in 120 16:9.
> 
> 
> If you want to wait about 6-8 months I can tell you exactly how it will look with an RS45 or hell you're in LI so you can stop by
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My reasoning for going with the EN4K despite the rather large price variance were as follows:
> 
> 
> My first reason is the frame on the EN4K is just beastly. I'm sure the XD frame is great but I tend to overdo things and the EN4K frame is overdone!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is all I opened of the box to see how black the material is and it is BLACK. The scratch you see in the picture is magnified by the flash. I'm not sure how it got there because it was packaged very nicely. You can't really see the scratch in person and I'm not thinking it will be a problem if the projector is over scanned on it.
> 
> 
> My second reason is the 4K material, even though it is less bright I am confident my next projector whether it be 2 or 4 years from now will be 4K and a brighter technology. If I would have went with the XD I know in a couple of years I would be stuck with a screen that would be limiting my projectors capabilities. Do it once, do it right.now if a 4K material comes out with higher gain then oh well.
> 
> 
> My 3rd reason was the black backing. With the XD this is an extra expense and is something that would possibly benefit me since I have Definitive Technology Super Tower speakers. The speakers aren't shiny but they're not dull either so not worth the chance.
> 
> 
> My 4th reason was that I ordered the screen early in my construction phase so I haven't completely blown my budget away. Had this been 4 months from now and I was trying to limit the financial damage I may have thought otherwise and regretted it over the long run.


----------



## chriscmore

A review was posted this week of the 4K material in Electronic House:
http://www.electronichouse.com/artic...theater_screen 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## mikesushil

nice stuff is dicussed here see you again ..guys


regards


sushil


----------



## Marcus Gan

HI Guys,


Need some advise.

My speaker will be only about 1 - 2 inches behind the AT screen is it OK?


Is there any minimum distance between the screen and speakers so that SQ will not be affected.


Thanks


Cheers

Marcus


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marcus Gan* /forum/post/21679524
> 
> 
> HI Guys,
> 
> 
> Need some advise.
> 
> My speaker will be only about 1 - 2 inches behind the AT screen is it OK?
> 
> 
> Is there any minimum distance between the screen and speakers so that SQ will not be affected.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Marcus



If we're talking mains, yes, you're fine


----------



## Marcus Gan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/21680214
> 
> 
> If we're talking mains, yes, you're fine



Hi Brad,


Thanks, yes only the main L/C/R.



Marcus


----------



## chrishet

Thought I would post my update on this thread...I got my 115 inch Jamestown Frame/Seymour XD screen today - it took about 20 minutes to put the frame together and about 45 minutes to get the screen on - with my wife's help...and another 10 minutes to hang it....piece of cake! No creases at all in my material..I have a few tweaks left to do but it looks AWESOME! I'll get some pics tomorrow.


I played Hubble 3D Imax first...I thought for several weeks about what my first movie would be and landed on this film as I have heard it is stunning and a great reference BD. The image coming from my Epson 6010 onto the new screen was amazing! Very bright in 3D, and the acoustics were fantastic, no apparent loss of level or dynamics, IMHO. I am no videophile, this is my first projector, but this was an amazing experience...


I mounted the screen direct to my wall, it couldn't be more than 2 inches from my B&W CWM7.3 center speaker, and no movement that I could tell - I may do some testing on this tomorrow. There was some VERY loud scenes in this movie and I never saw any issues.


I was near tears watching the STS-125 launch scene - I was there in person and it was great to relive the experience, but sad to know there will be no more shuttle missions.


----------



## bfisherjr

Marcus, mine are only 1-2" from screen and I've never seen any issues.


Congrats Chris


Quick question to anyone... I want to put some LED lighting behind the frame to create a glow (when the system is off). Has anyone done that yet and any lessons learned?


----------



## BillStratton




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marcus Gan* /forum/post/21679524
> 
> 
> HI Guys,
> 
> 
> Need some advise.
> 
> My speaker will be only about 1 - 2 inches behind the AT screen is it OK?
> 
> 
> Is there any minimum distance between the screen and speakers so that SQ will not be affected.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Marcus



Same as mine. I also have the black AT backing, so there are two layers. My Left and Right tower speakers and center channel speaker are all behind the screen. Sounds great to me! I've tried raising and lowering the screen while playing music to see if I could tell any difference. It's not a fast A/B comparison, so it's not a good test, but if there was any difference in sound it was too subtle for me to tell.


----------



## ADDUpstate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfisherjr* /forum/post/21681287
> 
> 
> Marcus, mine are only 1-2" from screen and I've never seen any issues.
> 
> 
> Congrats Chris
> 
> 
> Quick question to anyone... I want to put some LED lighting behind the frame to create a glow (when the system is off). Has anyone done that yet and any lessons learned?




There was an LED Screen lighting thread just recently. I commented in that thread. There is a difference, depending on what material you get. SeymourAV vs. Seymour SE EN4k


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ADDUpstate* /forum/post/21682084
> 
> 
> There was an LED Screen lighting thread just recently. I commented in that thread. There is a difference, depending on what material you get. SeymourAV vs. Seymour SE EN4k



Do you mind posting that link, I am about to purchase all my electrical for the basement


----------



## ADDUpstate

 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1393070


----------



## chriscmore

Here's an interesting article created by one of our dealers in the UK. He installed a 170" wide Center Stage XD screen, and fired two projectors to record their differences.

http://www.geckohomecinema.com/1080p-vs-4k.html 


The 1080p shown in the screen shots is a 3 chip 1080p DLP Runco VX44d (£80,000), and the 4K projector is of course the new Sony VPL VW1000ES (£16,800). They were fed identical material from the same player, both onto the XD screen. First, it's amazing the difference in detail from changing only the projector. Keep in mind that while the Sony's 4K may seem like ridiculous overkill for now, this incredible performance improvement is available at a fraction of the cost of the 3-chip Runco. Of course, the Runco is crazy-price, but it always makes my heart flutter when something much less expensive performs so much better.


Also, please note that the performance of this nearly-six figure, otherwise state of the art projector is not being limited by the Center Stage XD screen. In fact, the screen has so much more to resolve. Also, while the argument is solid that if you buy a quality, reference projection screen it will last through several projectors and be the best investment in the room, keep in mind how inexpensive the XD screen is relative to the other equipment.


Rob had this sage advice regarding screen selection for future-proofing your theater:


> Quote:
> *Do I Need a Different Screen?*
> 
> If you have a flat white screen it will be perfect for 4k projection. Vinyl screens with acoustic perforations and some woven screens however will compromise picture quality. Where the best picture and sound quality is required we typically recommend Seymour AV screens as providing the best combination of acoustic and video performance. These screens are also excellent value for money.



The couple caveats of course regard screen size and seating distance. Their demo screen is a spaceous 170" wide 2.35 ratio. While we don't yet have a minimum size rating for 4K use on the XD, the Enlightor-4K is the obvious solution, or for when you're needing to sit closer than perhaps 11'.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## adidino

I'm hoping someone can give me a little insight on the way the Seymour fixed frames are mounted? Reading through the documentation online it uses the hangman mounts (2 for larger widths) which is great but I'm curious how the bottom of the frame is secured? If at all? Up until now I've been used to Stewart mounting.


Tony


----------



## bfisherjr

Mine just rests against a standoff I built (my whole screen hangs away from the wall about a foot so I can mount 3 LCR speakers behind it). You can see it in this picture (1e and 1f if link takes you to the gallery). The top two brackets mount the hangmans, and the frame rests against the bottom two mounts just to help keep the frame from moving (and the 3 shelves are for the speakers).


Good luck! Very pleased with my screen (2 years now).


----------



## Taxi

The bottom is not secured.


In my setup, I have a 120" screen, so two upper brackets. The top lip of the fixed frame catches on the mounting bracket and just hangs there, so it was critical to get everything level, as well as making sure both brackets were at the same height. (I just used a long framing level and it worked fine.)


----------



## toref

Have any of you experienced unexpected delays in the delivery of Enlightor screens lately? I've had a EN4k screen in order for 6 (nearly 7) weeks now. Really eager to make some progress in my HT.


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toref* /forum/post/21812252
> 
> 
> Have any of you experienced unexpected delays in the delivery of Enlightor screens lately? I've had a EN4k screen in order for 6 (nearly 7) weeks now. Really eager to make some progress in my HT.



I had to wait a few weeks for mine but I wasn't in a hurry other than being excited.


Probably best to e-mail Chris and ask him when he expects to get it out. I don't think he stocks the material and probably orders big rolls at a time


----------



## toref

Thanks Larry. I've had some trouble getting updates from my local dealer and have become a bit worried. But it seems from your comment that it's just a matter of being patient. (Which is at the core of my problem - most likely.







) I left an e-mail using the the contact form on the SE web-site as I'm a European customer and the transaction goes directly to SE in the UK.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toref* /forum/post/21812252
> 
> 
> Have any of you experienced unexpected delays in the delivery of Enlightor screens lately? I've had a EN4k screen in order for 6 (nearly 7) weeks now. Really eager to make some progress in my HT.



We don't manufacture the Enlightor-4K screens for Norway. Have you contacted S-E in England? I'm not aware of any material shortages from our side.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

FYI, for a couple months now we've been manufacturing the retractables with our new Gen5 motors. They're 35dB and will run a little faster because we also upgraded the rollers to handle larger sizes. Larger sizes are also now listed on the site, although the next limiting factor is our case size. The largest sizes with significant drops won't fit in the case. We can still do caseless, however.


We also have masking retractables now, with Millibel AT panels that drop either on the sides (scope to 1.78) or a continuous one across the top (1.78 to scope). The case doubles in depth and becomes ceiling-only mounting, with two motor outputs. We have dual independent motor controllers also available. Later we'll work on something that can be retrofitted to existing retractables, but if you're in the market for a slick motorized masking retractable from scratch, they're a lot of fun.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## dropzone7

I don't know how much longer I can delay ordering my screen. I really need to get one in here in order to work things out with the rest of my setup. The problem is that I'm afraid the freight cost is going to put me over budget for a screen. I sent a request through the website to see if they can quote freight for me. My other option is to go the DIY route which would save me a lot of money but with the width screen I want I just don't think I want to chance making a frame of anything other than the extruded aluminum OEM frame. I don't want sagging or center supports. We shall see.


----------



## toref




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> We don't manufacture the Enlightor-4K screens for Norway. Have you contacted S-E in England? I'm not aware of any material shortages from our side.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Yeah, I've contacted SE in the UK today. Let's see what happens.


Regards, Tor


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7* /forum/post/21813490
> 
> 
> I don't know how much longer I can delay ordering my screen. I really need to get one in here in order to work things out with the rest of my setup. The problem is that I'm afraid the freight cost is going to put me over budget for a screen. I sent a request through the website to see if they can quote freight for me. My other option is to go the DIY route which would save me a lot of money but with the width screen I want I just don't think I want to chance making a frame of anything other than the extruded aluminum OEM frame. I don't want sagging or center supports. We shall see.



Or you could just do the EN4K, it has free shipping


----------



## studlygoorite

Hello All,


Just finished my theatre room about 6 months ago and have already decided to upgrade from my 142" Black Diamond 2.4.1. I am looking at a 184" AT Screen good for 4k and I notice more talk over here than in the SmX thread, are they comparable price and quality wise?


John


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/21815197
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> 
> Just finished my theatre room about 6 months ago and have already decided to upgrade from my 142" Black Diamond 2.4.1. I am looking at a 184" AT Screen good for 4k and I notice more talk over here than in the SmX thread, are they comparable price and quality wise?
> 
> 
> John



Customer service alone is the reason to go with Chris. Materials are probably comparable but good luck getting a sample from SMX to compare. Chris will have you samples in a couple of days.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/21815197
> 
> 
> hello all,
> 
> 
> just finished my theatre room about 6 months ago and have already decided to upgrade from my 142" black diamond 2.4.1. I am looking at a 184" at screen good for 4k and i notice more talk over here than in the smx thread, are they comparable price and quality wise?
> 
> 
> John



Comparable, yes! As others have stated... best customer service and response around, period!


----------



## TedO

Chris,


Is the EN2 material on the Seymour/Screen Excellence web site the same as the XD material?


Besides the mounting technique (O-rings and grommets vs groove tensioning) can you tell me or show me the difference between the EN4K frame and the frame that comes with the XD screens?


Can I order either screen from you or do I need to work through a dealer for the EN4K screen?


Do you have a showroom or the screens on display in your plant in Ames?


Can you PM me pricing for both screens H120 and F160 in the EN4K material?


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TedO* /forum/post/21828642
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Is the EN2 material on the Seymour/Screen Excellence web site the same as the XD material?
> 
> 
> Besides the mounting technique (O-rings and grommets vs groove tensioning) can you tell me or show me the difference between the EN4K frame and the frame that comes with the XD screens?
> 
> 
> Can I order either screen from you or do I need to work through a dealer for the EN4K screen?
> 
> 
> Do you have a showroom or the screens on display in your plant in Ames?
> 
> 
> Can you PM me pricing for both screens H120 and F160 in the EN4K material?



Not Chris, but I can answer some of your questions. The EN4K material can't be used with an O-ring grommet install due to the fabric, that is why it is installed with a bead type system. The EN4K screens are sold through dealers. If we can help you, please give us a call.


----------



## adidino

Just received my XD screen. Frame came together nicely however I noticed the bottom section of the frame does not rest perfectly level on one side of my false wall. I'm sure this is likely due to my false wall being off slightly as the frame is perfectly level. Any thoughts on how to secure the bottom side the the frame so it stays securely on the wall? The hangers are also perfectly level so that's not the cause either.


----------



## ADDUpstate

Scribe the false wall panel to match.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Could use a bit of velcro - but make sure you can still get the projector lens perpendicular to the screen, or it will drive you nuts.


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/21837167
> 
> 
> Could use a bit of velcro - but make sure you can still get the projector lens perpendicular to the screen, or it will drive you nuts.



It's just lifting off the wall on one side towards the bottom. If I press the bottom edge with finger with hardly any pressure at all, it will stay flat. Velcro is an option. I'm surprised there isn't any hardware included to secure the bottom like the Stewart frames.


----------



## SteveHorn

How far off the wall is it? If, as you say, the screen is "flat" (i.e not twisted or warped) and that the wall is the culprit, you could shim the french cleats that the screen hangs from off the wall by enough so that the entire screen is plumb. (You would likely have to shim out the bottom of the frame so the screen is plumb and not "aimed down" due to the cleats.)

But if the gap is not as severe, the velcro option sounds like a plan.


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/21838082
> 
> 
> How far off the wall is it? If, as you say, the screen is "flat" (i.e not twisted or warped) and that the wall is the culprit, you could shim the french cleats that the screen hangs from off the wall by enough so that the entire screen is plumb. (You would likely have to shim out the bottom of the frame so the screen is plumb and not "aimed down" due to the cleats.)
> 
> But if the gap is not as severe, the velcro option sounds like a plan.



Velcro seems to make the most sense at this point.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adidino* /forum/post/21837813
> 
> 
> It's just lifting off the wall on one side towards the bottom. If I press the bottom edge with finger with hardly any pressure at all, it will stay flat. Velcro is an option. I'm surprised there isn't any hardware included to secure the bottom like the Stewart frames.



You can use an "L" shaped clip. If you want the clip to be hidden. place one leg of the clip so that it is behind the screen and then screw through the clip into the bottom of the screen. Other leg of clip is fastened to a stud in the wall. You will have to remove the screen to install the clips. This is the method that most marker boards and tack boards are installed by, except four or more clips are used. It is similar to how Stewart hangs their screens.


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5* /forum/post/21838879
> 
> 
> You can use an "L" shaped clip. If you want the clip to be hidden. place one leg of the clip so that it is behind the screen and then screw through the clip into the bottom of the screen. Other leg of clip is fastened to a stud in the wall. You will have to remove the screen to install the clips. This is the method that most marker boards and tack boards are installed by, except four or more clips are used. It is similar to how Stewart hangs their screens.




That would require drilling into the frame though. No? I don't recall seeing holes on the frame to support an L bracket.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adidino* /forum/post/21839278
> 
> 
> That would require drilling into the frame though. No? I don't recall seeing holes on the frame to support an L bracket.



Correct you would need to drill into the bottom of the frame or use self drilling screws.


----------



## Chuck Miller

I'm in the process of building my HT. I've seen several comments about recommendations for 1" to 2-3" between speakers and AT screens. I notice that those are for LCR speakers. This leads me to believe that subwoofers are a no-no behind AT screens. My setup could place not one, but two subwoofers behind a false wall. So, what's the party line on subwoofers and AT screens? The AT material is very interesting, just want to see if it comes with limitations on sub location.


PS: The speaker system I plan to buy includes two subs and they are recommended to be placed side by side at the front of the theater. Hence my question 


Thanks,


Chuck


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

Normally with a false wall your subs would be below the screen. I can't think of too many situations where the sub would actually be firing through the screen any way.


----------



## studlygoorite

Are you more apt to get hot spotting with a curved screen than without.


My sub will be behind an AT Screen also.


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chuck Miller* /forum/post/21843335
> 
> 
> I'm in the process of building my HT. I've seen several comments about recommendations for 1" to 2-3" between speakers and AT screens. I notice that those are for LCR speakers. This leads me to believe that subwoofers are a no-no behind AT screens. My setup could place not one, but two subwoofers behind a false wall. So, what's the party line on subwoofers and AT screens? The AT material is very interesting, just want to see if it comes with limitations on sub location.
> 
> 
> PS: The speaker system I plan to buy includes two subs and they are recommended to be placed side by side at the front of the theater. Hence my question
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Chuck



I think that subs will be much less affected by being behind acoustically transparent material than your LCR's, and I certainly have no issues with my LCR behind my Seymour screen. I do not think this will be a problem.


Someone please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## deromax

I never had any trouble with powerful subs near or behind my screen causing ripples. On the other hand, my shelf mounted projector is being rattled at some frequencies on reference listening and the image will slightly blur. Aftermarket Soborthane (SP?) feet under the projector helped a lot but not completely.


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/21843412
> 
> 
> Are you more apt to get hot spotting with a curved screen than without.
> 
> 
> My sub will be behind an AT Screen also.



Zero hot-spotting with any weaves, curved or otherwise because they have very uniform luminance.


Subs behind AT screens are of no concern acoustically; that frequency range will go through any such material like it's not there. Forward-firing ports are another matter. They can have a screen (or fabric like 701) jumping quite noticably on explosions, etc. It is an easy fix, though, to rotate the sub 90 degrees so that the port isn't aimed at the screen. There is absolutely no acoustic downside to doing this.


----------



## Chuck Miller

Thanks for all the replies. What I was concerned about was the effect of the subs on the screen, not the ability of the screen to pass the audio. I think that the subs would be located below the screen, so maybe it's not so bad. Whatever I put in front of them I expect will be vibrating or moving. I'd prefer that it not be the screen!


Chuck


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/21843412
> 
> 
> Are you more apt to get hot spotting with a curved screen than without.
> 
> 
> My sub will be behind an AT Screen also.



No, actually a curved screen helps reduce hot spotting for screens with high gains, but for screens under perhaps 1.3 gain there are no uniformity benefits to curving the frame.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chuck Miller* /forum/post/21845788
> 
> 
> Thanks for all the replies. What I was concerned about was the effect of the subs on the screen, not the ability of the screen to pass the audio. I think that the subs would be located below the screen, so maybe it's not so bad. Whatever I put in front of them I expect will be vibrating or moving. I'd prefer that it not be the screen!
> 
> 
> Chuck



Subs located below the screen will not have any affect on the screen.


----------



## Chuck Miller

Thanks Mike. That's good to know. I'm sure I'll have plenty of other vibrations to deal with.


Chuck


----------



## ADDUpstate

Hey Chris,


Stopped by the house today to drag in the new frame and masking panels...


Unboxed everything and man, those masking panels are no joke.


I was expecting something lightweight... these are high quality, sturdy aluminum frames with the AT material wrapped around them...


Can't wait to get them in use, but first need to swap out the frames...


Thanks so much for your flexibility and attention to detail. Top notch organization and quality product produced in the USA! I'll get the original frame back to you ASAP.


----------



## studlygoorite




Cam Man said:


> Zero hot-spotting with any weaves, curved or otherwise because they have very uniform luminance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21845950
> 
> 
> No, actually a curved screen helps reduce hot spotting for screens with high gains, but for screens under perhaps 1.3 gain there are no uniformity benefits to curving the frame.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know, thanks guys.
Click to expand...


----------



## BroncoSport

I just received my sample from Chris (well a couple days ago) and put it up on the screen wall next to the Carada samples. I had my wife come down to sit in the estimated location of the front row and give me her thoughts. She thought the XD looked very similar to the Brilliant White from Carada but prefered the XD. I also asked her and I looked myself and at 9.5"....we couldn't see the weave at all. Note that this is just with a very bright shop light shining on it from behind.


The cool thing about this material is the feel. I was a little concerned about what I would be in store for if I used it for my DIY scope screen (have had the vinyl Carada screen samples for a while and they don't seem to be very sturdy), but having the sample in my hands assured me that this XD fabric WILL take tensioning quite well.


I also like how small the holes are and until you hold it up close, it is hard to see the holes.


Anyway, I will be starting my screen wall possibly tonight and soon Chris will be getting my order for screen fabric.


Thanks for promptly sending out the sample, Chris.


----------



## toref

My EN4K screen material with mounting accessories arrived a couple of days ago. Seeing the beautiful fabric put a big smile on my face. Today I got it all mounted in my DIY frame construction. I'm excited to see it in action. I must say this is an amazing fabric. Testing it with the yet-to-be-worn-in Klipsch speakers behind the screen revealed only a very marginal attenuation of the treble. Nothing some calibration on the RX-A3010 cannot fix.


Despite some long weeks waiting I'm very happy about this choice. Now, if would just be able to decide on the projector...


----------



## adude

How did you managed to get the EN4k material? I thought you have to buy it with the frame, not diy.


----------



## adude

I have a question about backing to be used behind a screen. I read in another thread that if we use white backing behind AT screen, it helps with the screen gain. does that makes sense, instead of using black? I want to do approx 128" wide, 16:9 screen, so brightness is quite important for me.


Also, has anyone here used black muslin as the backing? It would be interesting to hear the experience.


----------



## toref




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adude* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> How did you managed to get the EN4k material? I thought you have to buy it with the frame, not diy.



SE has a DIY product called "Craftsman" which consists of the fabric, mounting profiles, the black backing and a particular tool to attach the fabrics to the profiles.


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toref* /forum/post/21861294
> 
> 
> SE has a DIY product called "Craftsman" which consists of the fabric, mounting profiles, the black backing and a particular tool to attach the fabrics to the profiles.



The Craftsman product is EN4K


----------



## Chuck Miller

 http://www.screenexcellence.com/products/craftsman.html 


"The Craftsman is only for skilled installers"......


How skilled are we???










Chuck


----------



## adude

Dang, and I just bought XD mateial last week. Oh well.


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adude* /forum/post/21862224
> 
> 
> Dang, and I just bought XD mateial last week. Oh well.



I compared both and went with the XD Material. There's no advantage to the 4K material unless you are 8ft from the screen or less. Otherwise XD holds a better image IMO. I couldn't be happier.


----------



## turls




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adude* /forum/post/21861281
> 
> 
> I have a question about backing to be used behind a screen. I read in another thread that if we use white backing behind AT screen, it helps with the screen gain. does that makes sense, instead of using black? I want to do approx 128" wide, 16:9 screen, so brightness is quite important for me.
> 
> 
> Also, has anyone here used black muslin as the backing? It would be interesting to hear the experience.



If you purchase EN4k, it comes with black backing. I don't know what it does to contrast to have white or black. I have a good black background behind my screen so I didn't use the black backing (this advice has previously been given by Chris in this thread). I didn't want any extra audio attenuation. The problem is, since you cut the EN4k to only 1/4" outside the frame, if you make a decision, I guess you are stuck with it, or risk not having enough extra fabric to change your mind.


----------



## ADDUpstate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *turls* /forum/post/21863360
> 
> 
> If you purchase EN4k, it comes with black backing. I don't know what it does to contrast to have white or black. I have a good black background behind my screen so I didn't use the black backing (this advice has previously been given by Chris in this thread). I didn't want any extra audio attenuation. The problem is, since you cut the EN4k to only 1/4" outside the frame, if you make a decision, I guess you are stuck with it, or risk not having enough extra fabric to change your mind.



+1 on not using the black backing if you have a black rear wall and have spent the time to make sure everything is flat black and non-reflective back there.


I don't quite understand the rest of your statement though... please interpret. The stuck and change your mind parts...


----------



## SteveHorn

This chatter about the SE Craftsman installer package is interesting, though its not clear to me whether its available directly only from SE or also thru Seymour-SE. Chris?


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adidino* /forum/post/21863015
> 
> 
> I compared both and went with the XD Material. There's no advantage to the 4K material unless you are 8ft from the screen or less. Otherwise XD holds a better image IMO. I couldn't be happier.



Hi Tony,


Please elaborate further on your comparison!










I will be sitting 11 to 12ft from a 120" wide (130" diagonal) Scope Screen in a totally light controlled room.


Thanks!



...Glenn


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adude* /forum/post/21861281
> 
> 
> I have a question about backing to be used behind a screen. I read in another thread that if we use white backing behind AT screen, it helps with the screen gain. does that makes sense, instead of using black? I want to do approx 128" wide, 16:9 screen, so brightness is quite important for me.
> 
> 
> Also, has anyone here used black muslin as the backing? It would be interesting to hear the experience.



Using a white backing behind an AT screen can help with brightness, but it ruins the on-screen contrast ratio and sharpness with light contamination. Try a checkerboard pattern with and without to see the differences. Not recommended.


Anything black behind the screen will optically work. Muslin isn't very acoustically transparent, however. Perhaps cut out around the speakers so it's effectively just a removable version of a black paint job?


Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/21863810
> 
> 
> This chatter about the SE Craftsman installer package is interesting, though its not clear to me whether its available directly only from SE or also thru Seymour-SE. Chris?



The Craftsman series isn't available in North America. In 2010, I instead reduced the pricing of the fixed frame by 20 to 50% to make it the obvious value among its retail competitors here.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## TedO

Chris, can you PM me pricing for a RF 120 HD and an RF 150 WS? I want to compare pricing between the XD material and the 4K. I would not need the black backing the the 4K material as the space behind the screen will be blacked out.


I'm thinking of going with the wide screen to better future proof my purchase. I will more than likely run my screen in 16:9 and order a set of masking panels also.


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/21866300
> 
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> 
> Please elaborate further on your comparison!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be sitting 11 to 12ft from a 120" wide (130" diagonal) Scope Screen in a totally light controlled room.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn




Which projector?


----------



## Chuck Miller

Hi Tony,


I don't know about Glenn, but for me it will be the Epson 5010/6010. I'm also interested in more details about your comparison.


Thanks,


Chuck


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adidino* /forum/post/21867338
> 
> 
> which projector?




jvc rs45


----------



## adidino

The image on the XD material had more pop and was more vibrant vs the E4k IMO. The 4k material did not seem to retain as much light as the XD. As for the physical material, the 4K seem to delicate and easy to snag or tear. The XD was pretty strong and closer to a tradional screen material.


I would suggest ordering a 24x24 sample of each from Chris. It's enough material to give you a good idea on what results you can expect from your projector. For me, unless I'm 8ft or less, XD all the way.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Thanks for the response Tony... Nothing like a real world subjective experience!


My real concern has always been the XD's weave visibility from my proposed 11 to 12 foot seating distance!


The bit of extra gain that the XD has over the 4k can certainly help and the price of the XD is much less expensive than the 4k... YIKES!











...Glenn


----------



## turls




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ADDUpstate* /forum/post/21863415
> 
> 
> +1 on not using the black backing if you have a black rear wall and have spent the time to make sure everything is flat black and non-reflective back there.
> 
> 
> I don't quite understand the rest of your statement though... please interpret. The stuck and change your mind parts...



Ok, what I meant was the Screen Excellence instructions tell you to cut the material so you only leave 1/4" after you put the fabric in the frame with the spatula. If you do that, without the black backing, you are probably cutting it tighter than it would be with the black backing because instead of having 2 layers in the frame you only have one. You may not have enough left to spatula in 2 layers of fabric if you cut it using the 1 layer as a guide.


But now I am told by Chris that he doesn't recommend cutting it anyway...so its a moot point and anyone with a EN4k should consider taping the extra instead of cutting anyway!


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adidino* /forum/post/21867733
> 
> 
> The image on the XD material had more pop and was more vibrant vs the E4k IMO. The 4k material did not seem to retain as much light as the XD. As for the physical material, the 4K seem to delicate and easy to snag or tear. The XD was pretty strong and closer to a tradional screen material.
> 
> 
> I would suggest ordering a 24x24 sample of each from Chris. It's enough material to give you a good idea on what results you can expect from your projector. For me, unless I'm 8ft or less, XD all the way.



I went with the EN4K for future proofing. You're absolutely correct in that XD is brighter...I believe I posted a pretty god picture of the difference a few pages back.


One of the things I did notice is that the XD was a little annoying on white scenes


----------



## ADDUpstate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *turls* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, what I meant was the Screen Excellence instructions tell you to cut the material so you only leave 1/4" after you put the fabric in the frame with the spatula. If you do that, without the black backing, you are probably cutting it tighter than it would be with the black backing because instead of having 2 layers in the frame you only have one. You may not have enough left to spatula in 2 layers of fabric if you cut it using the 1 layer as a guide.
> 
> 
> But now I am told by Chris that he doesn't recommend cutting it anyway...so its a moot point and anyone with a EN4k should consider taping the extra instead of cutting anyway!



I didn't tape or cut or anything. Just left it there... it was only about 1 or 2" all around anyway.


----------



## toref




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chuck Miller* /forum/post/21861594
> 
> http://www.screenexcellence.com/products/craftsman.html
> 
> 
> "The Craftsman is only for skilled installers"......
> 
> 
> How skilled are we???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck










With a clean floor and clean hands I think most amateurs would be able to install it. But naturally, SE needs to make this disclaimer because there is absolutely some risks of getting it wrong. The fabric is delicate and must be treated correspondingly.


----------



## toref




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adidino* /forum/post/21863015
> 
> 
> I compared both and went with the XD Material. There's no advantage to the 4K material unless you are 8ft from the screen or less. Otherwise XD holds a better image IMO. I couldn't be happier.



My viewing distance was the main motivation for me too - in selecting the EN4K material. About 7-8 ft. I think you're absolutely right in suggesting that the viewing distance is used as the criteria. The XD has more gain as well.


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann* /forum/post/21867941
> 
> 
> 
> My real concern has always been the XD's weave visibility from my proposed 11 to 12 foot seating distance!
> 
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



No visible weaving at 11ft. I started to notice some slight weaving on white images about 9ft or so.


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adidino* /forum/post/21863015
> 
> 
> I compared both and went with the XD Material. There's no advantage to the 4K material unless you are 8ft from the screen or less. Otherwise XD holds a better image IMO. I couldn't be happier.



That may vary a bit with visual accuity, but overall I agree with Tony's observations in his posts here. XD is a terrific screen for larger/farther viewing distances. It's my go-to for those rooms.


I also recently took a close look at Elite's new 4K material. It's nice, but like all 4K materials I've seen so far, it doesn't have the gain of XD. If you can sit farther than 8'-10', XD is terrific for 4K or 2K.


----------



## gsearles




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I also recently took a close look at Elite's new 4K material. It's nice, but like all 4K materials I've seen so far, it doesn't have the gain of XD. If you can sit farther than 8'-10', XD is terrific for 4K or 2K.



Very happy to read these reports. Soon to install my 130" wide XD screen. Front row is at 11-12 feet, back row 5 feet behind that. Can't wait to start watching scope movies the way they're supposed to be seen!


----------



## Vincehoffman

ARGH! My new Seymour-Screen Excellence EN4k motorized screen just jammed up while opening. About half way through the opening cycle, one side continued to drop while the other bound up. I stopped the motor as quickly as I could but now I have the stuck side 1/3 of the way open and crinkled up while the other side is 1/2-to-2/3rds of the way open. Briefly toggling the motor between open and closed makes it clear the motor is working but fails to unjam the screen. Gently tugging on the tab-tensioning wire on the jammed side doesn't accomplish anything either. I've left a voice mail for Chris. Any other suggestions?


Happy Trails!

MTB Vince


----------



## PrimeTime

Has anyone attempted a gray xD screen (via spraying, or....???) ???


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/21883644
> 
> 
> Has anyone attempted a gray xD screen (via spraying, or....???) ???



No. But I strongly suspect that any coating on ANY AT screen (fabric or perf) will negatively impact the audio characteristics. I suppose one could be sprayed (but for what purpose?) if it were not being used as an AT screen.


----------



## BobL

There are companies that make gray AT screens. For perforated screens Stewart is a great choice with many materials available in their micro-perf, for a weave screen look at Vutec's Greydove Soundscreen material.


If you are looking for just the material that might be more difficult, I'm not sure if Vutec will sell the material only. You'd have to call and find out.


----------



## BroncoSport

Anyone heard from Chris? I have sent several emails over the last few days trying to place my order and have gotten no response since the first reply with the price quote.


Chris if your reading this please double check your spam or junk folder, there are likely 3 emails from me (Scott)


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/21883644
> 
> 
> Has anyone attempted a gray xD screen (via spraying, or....???) ???



If you just want darker, put on some sunglasses.







Gray screens just darken everything down. While we could use gray threads (even though getting their color temperature accurate is very tricky), I'm not sure what it would accomplish. The worst ones are the ones that just alternative white and gray threads: lower FtL, much more texture - those give AT screens a bad name.


The only AT screen that would visually accomplish something - ambient light rejection - is the Stewart Firehawk. Just make sure you're sitting far enough back, and think twice about doing that to the audio. It's ~90% NON-AT.


The S-SE Enlightor-4K is technically a light gray since it's gain is under unity. Let me know if you need samples.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BroncoSport* /forum/post/21887573
> 
> 
> Anyone heard from Chris? I have sent several emails over the last few days trying to place my order and have gotten no response since the first reply with the price quote.
> 
> 
> Chris if your reading this please double check your spam or junk folder, there are likely 3 emails from me (Scott)



Emails replied to. Catching back up from Easter break...










Cheers,

Chris


----------



## PrimeTime

I will be using sunglasses -- for 3-D.


I'm looking at a 96" screen. If my wife gets rainbowed out with the DLP I like, we'll swap it out for an Epson 3010. And the Epson guys are talking about deploying Neutral Density filters with screens under 100". Having seen how bright that guy is on a 190-inch _wall_, I can see why.


However, to me it makes more sense to darken the screen than to throttle down the projector. You end up with reduced light in either case, but the darker screen will be -- well, _blacker_ in response to ambient or reflected light.


My guess would be that if you used a thinned-down gray enamel spray on the xD, you might only need to punch the Treble pre-emphasis shelf up one tick to compensate. Maybe I'll ask for a small sample to test this, as I doubt there are enough customers in the sub-100-inch-with-light-cannon category to warrant actual production runs and inventory.


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/21888261
> 
> 
> I will be using sunglasses -- for 3-D.
> 
> 
> I'm looking at a 96" screen. If my wife gets rainbowed out with the DLP I like, we'll swap it out for an Epson 3010. And the Epson guys are talking about deploying Neutral Density filters with screens under 100". Having seen how bright that guy is on a 190-inch _wall_, I can see why.
> 
> 
> However, to me it makes more sense to darken the screen than to throttle down the projector. You end up with reduced light in either case, but the darker screen will be -- well, _blacker_ in response to ambient or reflected light.
> 
> 
> My guess would be that if you used a thinned-down gray enamel spray on the xD, you might only need to punch the Treble pre-emphasis shelf up one tick to compensate. Maybe I'll ask for a small sample to test this, as I doubt there are enough customers in the sub-100-inch-with-light-cannon category to warrant actual production runs and inventory.



The E4k Material with a black backing gives the screen a grayish tint. I wouldn't spray the XD material. That sounds insane


----------



## PrimeTime

Is that material available, or do you have to buy the whole shebang? I thought I read that they're only selling it as assembled product.


I wouldn't dismiss it as "insane." I would think of it more as -- well, to coin a phrase, _AV Science_.


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/21888303
> 
> 
> Is that material available, or do you have to buy the whole shebang? I thought I read that they're only selling it as assembled product.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't dismiss it as "insane." I would think of it more as -- well, to coin a phrase, _AV Science_.



Someone in this thread mentioned they were able to get it from Screen Excellence but I'm not sure. I would just order a 20x20 piece of the XD material from Chris and test it against your projector. I don't think the Epson will be too bright to be honest. If you had a DPI projector, then maybe.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/21888303
> 
> 
> Is that material available, or do you have to buy the whole shebang? I thought I read that they're only selling it as assembled product.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't dismiss it as "insane." I would think of it more as -- well, to coin a phrase, _AV Science_.



It would be an interesting (AV) science experiment, both from the transparency test perspective as well as how to best apply a spray coating. I don't see the use of rattle cans as a way to get a uniform coating. Maybe get a auto body shop to do a professional spray job in a booth. But then, could the resulting fabric still be flexible enough to roll? As far as testing the result for its transparency properties, looks like you'd need a sample large enough (bigger than 2' square) to put in front of a speaker and measure with an RTA.


I fear, we've wandered into the DIY area.


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/21889227
> 
> 
> It would be an interesting (AV) science experiment, both from the transparency test perspective as well as how to best apply a spray coating. I don't see the use of rattle cans as a way to get a uniform coating. Maybe get a auto body shop to do a professional spray job in a booth. But then, could the resulting fabric still be flexible enough to roll? As far as testing the result for its transparency properties, looks like you'd need a sample large enough (bigger than 2' square) to put in front of a speaker and measure with an RTA.
> 
> 
> I fear, we've wandered into the DIY area.



For starters, I would have to assume painting the XD material will totally destroy the weave. Which would defeat the purpose of an AT screen.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

If you insist on trying to paint it I would look at something like SEM Color Coat. It is made for painting automotive interiors. You can paint plastic, leather, vinyl, carpet, you name it. Key is you do is in light coats on plastic so you don't loose the grain that is embosed into the plastic. Same should apply to the screen, light coats so you don't fill the weave.


----------



## Ericglo

As long as it is a fixed screen, it doesn't need to be a special paint. Unfortunately, I think any paint is going to effect the acoustical properties of the material like Tony said.


----------



## Mike Garrett

There are some threads on AVS about painting AT woven screens. I remember reading them years ago. Pictures were taken showing the before transparency and the after transparency. Some of the results were very good, but it is a one shot deal. It is very easy to get too much paint applied in an area and mess up the screen.


----------



## PrimeTime

I probably should have posted on the DIY section, but the xD commentary seems more active over here these days.


Again, the rationale is to "convert" a smallish AT screen from single-chip DLP to light cannon.


IMHO the trick is to get the spraying applied evenly. Don't want to reduce the reflectivity too much, so a lighter shade of gray would be sufficient. A thinner coat should have less effect on the acoustical properties, and will have less visible hot spots.


Which brings up another question: Isn't the xD material reversible? If so, you might be able to have two screens in one, or at least get a second crack at the spray application (spray bleeding notwithstanding).


Although it might further the science aspect, I don't think test gear would be necessary for an acoustical evaluation -- just A/B between a small treated sample and an uncovered speaker. I'm reading about -2dB VHF reduction currently with xD; I would expect another 1-2dB or so (maybe lower HF corner freq), which would be no big deal to equalize with a simple Baxendall-type pre-emphasis. Just get the FM radio unmuted interstation (white) noise to sound the same, and you're there.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Why not put an ND filter in front of the projector lens?


----------



## PrimeTime

A ND filter just reduces the brightness of the projected image. It will not reduce the reflected intensity of non-projected (i.e., ambient) incident light which is polluting the projected black areas and reducing image contrast and "pop."


----------



## fight4yu

Hi All. I just replaced my old Seymour electric 16:9 with 2.35 scope. I noticed that i got a new remote. instead of the 2 silver pebble sized one, I now got a somewhat bigger white remote. Are they the same, and how do I operate it? It does not come with a manual and I cannot find it on Chris website... On the website, it seems like there is a black and silver, but mine is white.. so I am scratching my head here...

I haven't put my screen up yet, but I just want to make sure so i don't have to send it back... Thanks in advance!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/21895694
> 
> 
> Hi All. I just replaced my old Seymour electric 16:9 with 2.35 scope. I noticed that i got a new remote. instead of the 2 silver pebble sized one, I now got a somewhat bigger white remote. Are they the same, and how do I operate it? It does not come with a manual and I cannot find it on Chris website... On the website, it seems like there is a black and silver, but mine is white.. so I am scratching my head here...
> 
> I haven't put my screen up yet, but I just want to make sure so i don't have to send it back... Thanks in advance!



That's the new remote for the new Gen5 motors. It will work with your new screen for sure, but not your old screen. It's still a simple up/stop/down combo that you'll surely figure out. We'll get the new pics up and clean up the remaining references soon.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## fight4yu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21898165
> 
> 
> That's the new remote for the new Gen5 motors. It will work with your new screen for sure, but not your old screen. It's still a simple up/stop/down combo that you'll surely figure out. We'll get the new pics up and clean up the remaining references soon.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris. How do I program the stop position?

I try the old way to press STOP+DOWN, but it does not work (also, therei is no LED now on the screen case, so I don't know when I get it in or not).


It seems like if I just press STOP for a while, it will beep and seems like I am in program mode. But then, I don't know what to do next, and how to exit etc.


Thanks,


Thomas


----------



## Purple X




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chuck Miller* /forum/post/21843335
> 
> 
> My setup could place not one, but two subwoofers behind a false wall. So, what's the party line on subwoofers and AT screens? The AT material is very interesting, just want to see if it comes with limitations on sub location.



There wasn't enough room below my screen for the sub to entirely be clear of the bottom of the frame, and that was having an impact on sound, so I has to move my sub up so its entirely behind the screen fabric, on top of a hefty concrete block. the front of the subwoofer about about 3" from the screen fabric (front firing sub)


In normal movie situations, sitting 11'-ish away I don't notice anything. But getting up close to the screen (ie 1' away) on a heavy bass rumble I can see the screen vibrating.


I'm sure moving the sub back would eliminate the visible vibrations, but I'm too tight for space to see how far back.


----------



## ADDUpstate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Purple X* /forum/post/21901449
> 
> 
> There wasn't enough room below my screen for the sub to entirely be clear of the bottom of the frame, and that was having an impact on sound, so I has to move my sub up so its entirely behind the screen fabric, on top of a hefty concrete block. the front of the subwoofer about about 3" from the screen fabric (front firing sub)
> 
> 
> In normal movie situations, sitting 11'-ish away I don't notice anything. But getting up close to the screen (ie 1' away) on a heavy bass rumble I can see the screen vibrating.
> 
> 
> I'm sure moving the sub back would eliminate the visible vibrations, but I'm too tight for space to see how far back.




How did you test for the impact the screen frame was having on the sound?


I have two 15" front firing subs behind the EN4K frame and screen and the screen frame is in front of the subs, some screen above and GOM below. I haven't noticed any difference from before I put the larger screen in where the frame crosses the sub driver.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fight4yu* /forum/post/21900279
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris. How do I program the stop position?
> 
> I try the old way to press STOP+DOWN, but it does not work (also, therei is no LED now on the screen case, so I don't know when I get it in or not).
> 
> 
> It seems like if I just press STOP for a while, it will beep and seems like I am in program mode. But then, I don't know what to do next, and how to exit etc.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Thomas



The RF-Gen5 motor limits are mechanical using the little hex tool that was included with the screen. To adjust the limits, look up in the motor head and identify the arrow indicating which roller direction's limit you're adjusting. The pot next to each arrow has a + and - direction. You'll need to actuate the motor to its limits each time to see how it's changed, which can be done with only a few inches of travel.


You shouldn't need to program the remote unless assigning a new one to the motor. However, if you do the procedure is:

* Hold "up" button for 2 seconds with the screen unpowered.

* Plug in the screen while still holding the "up" button. The motor will chirp in confirmation.

* Release and tap the "up" button again within five beeps (a few seconds).


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Here's to my knowledge the second most powerful subwoofer setup behind a Center Stage XD screen. He upgraded from that little CRT to a nice big screen, while keeping his acoustic configuration in its best sounding location. Like any proper audiophile would.


No reported issues with screen (or bowel) movements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2rJSZKZsyQ


----------



## fight4yu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/21903739
> 
> 
> The RF-Gen5 motor limits are mechanical using the little hex tool that was included with the screen. To adjust the limits, look up in the motor head and identify the arrow indicating which roller direction's limit you're adjusting. The pot next to each arrow has a + and - direction. You'll need to actuate the motor to its limits each time to see how it's changed, which can be done with only a few inches of travel.
> 
> 
> You shouldn't need to program the remote unless assigning a new one to the motor. However, if you do the procedure is:
> 
> * Hold "up" button for 2 seconds with the screen unpowered.
> 
> * Plug in the screen while still holding the "up" button. The motor will chirp in confirmation.
> 
> * Release and tap the "up" button again within five beeps (a few seconds).
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



OK. I found the adjustment in the roller head.

It seems like the upper hole is for adjusting UP, and the lower hole is for adjusting DOWN. Since I will be adjusting the DOWN limit, I will use the DOWN hole.

And I see a + on the right and - on the left. So, + means increasing the limit (so in the case of DOWN, it will extend more??)


i also do not see the HEX tool.. I assume it is inside the white package, but all I got is the remote, a pen, a keychain and a registration card.. Can you send one to me?

I hope it is short and may be angled enough, because that part of the control is sort of "covered" by the panel, and it is extremely hard for me to even see inside the hole. Spacing is maybe at most 2 inches....


----------



## nickbuol

I'm still waiting on my shipment from Chris. I am so excited. Ordered last Saturday, was supposed to ship Monday, but there were some issues with production that has greatly delayed shipments. :-( Here it is Friday, we've got people coming over this weekend to check out the new theater, and no screen. It is as much my fault as any for not ordering sooner, but when I heard that it would ship this past Monday (and I am a quick 2 hour drive from Chris), I foolishly made my plans.


I guess they will just have to deal with projecting on a brown textured wall. LOL


Oh well, things could be worse. I am just wanting to get to the next phase of my theater completion.


----------



## studlygoorite

I have received my samples of the XD material and the 4K for my 174" Diagonal Curved Screen, one thing I noticed with the XD material was that it got brighter as I moved off axis. Did I have my sample sideways or is this a feature of the XD?


John


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/21931605
> 
> 
> I have received my samples of the XD material and the 4K for my 174" Diagonal Curved Screen, one thing I noticed with the XD material was that it got brighter as I moved off axis. Did I have my sample sideways or is this a feature of the XD?
> 
> 
> John



Sounds like the material was not perfectly flat. it should not get brighter as you move off axis.


----------



## nickbuol

Just an update on my order as it may relate to others out there, but my screen material should be arriving today. I called Chris yesterday to find out what was going on, and he told me that it was shipping yesterday "for sure". Well, it did. A week late, but at least it is coming. Now hopefully FedEx didn't trash it in the 2 hour drive from Seymour to me.


----------



## studlygoorite

At what size is a seam introduced to an AT Centerstage scope screen?


----------



## nickbuol

I would say that it depends on if you use the material "straight" or at an angle. (Angle if there is any chance of moire.)


For a straight cut, you are at 98" vertical max, but that doesn't allow for attaching to a frame. Depending on your attachment method (grommets with rubber o-rings should yield about as much of that 98" as possible, but still losing about 4" in height)...


2.35:1 at 94" vertical is 220.9" wide (18.4 FEET wide) or 240" diagonal

2.40:1 at 94" vertical is 225.6" wide (18.8 FEET wide) or 244" diagonal.

That is with my quick math anyway. MASSIVE screens no matter how you slice it.


----------



## blipszyc

Am leaning toward one of these screens but had a question about what can be seen behind it...will speakers with gloss or piano black finishes cause problems? Looking to get B&W CM9s but haven't honed in on a finish yet.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blipszyc* /forum/post/21949844
> 
> 
> Am leaning toward one of these screens but had a question about what can be seen behind it...will speakers with gloss or piano black finishes cause problems? Looking to get B&W CM9s but haven't honed in on a finish yet.



If you do have issues you can put the black backing behind it. I have speakers with white cones and can't see them at all with the black backing, never tried it with out the backing.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nickbuol* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would say that it depends on if you use the material "straight" or at an angle. (Angle if there is any chance of moire.)
> 
> 
> For a straight cut, you are at 98" vertical max, but that doesn't allow for attaching to a frame. Depending on your attachment method (grommets with rubber o-rings should yield about as much of that 98" as possible, but still losing about 4" in height)...
> 
> 
> 2.35:1 at 94" vertical is 220.9" wide (18.4 FEET wide) or 240" diagonal
> 
> 2.40:1 at 94" vertical is 225.6" wide (18.8 FEET wide) or 244" diagonal.
> 
> That is with my quick math anyway. MASSIVE screens no matter how you slice it.



True dat. I'd add to not worry about the tilt *number*. Our standard practice is to angle the cut at 20 degrees but then shallow that out as the screen size gets larger. Once the angle gets down under about 8 degrees we then just do a regular cut. It's worked 100% of the time.


If the giant sizes Nick calculated aren't large enough for your should-be-commercial theater, you can step up to our S-SE Enlightor screens for up to 20 foot tall screens. We have yet to actually need to do a seam although we're set up for it as needed.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blipszyc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Am leaning toward one of these screens but had a question about what can be seen behind it...will speakers with gloss or piano black finishes cause problems? Looking to get B&W CM9s but haven't honed in on a finish yet.



You won't need the black backing with those speakers. It's usually easy to darken things enough for the XD to be used solo.


Chris,

Chris


----------



## Purple X




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ADDUpstate* /forum/post/21902197
> 
> 
> How did you test for the impact the screen frame was having on the sound?
> 
> 
> I have two 15" front firing subs behind the EN4K frame and screen and the screen frame is in front of the subs, some screen above and GOM below. I haven't noticed any difference from before I put the larger screen in where the frame crosses the sub driver.



I ended up using the sweep test from the AIX test disc to locate dips and frequencies that excited subwoofer related rattles and distortions. Moving the Sub Up on a concrete block reduced audible problems quite a bit in this one case







(smoother response, less distortion)


Behind where the bottom of the frame is a solid hard-wood 4x6. Since this cant be moved, I cant say conclusively if it is that that was really the issue, or moving the sub-woofer further from the floor had the larger impact. Other than that is a similar setup; Screen above, GOM below. Only the one sub though.


----------



## azula

has anyone tried to attach the screen frame to the screen wall with velcro? this would enable you to forego using z-bars and drilling mounting brackets into the back of the frame. just trying to think outside the box! lol


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *azula* /forum/post/22045511
> 
> 
> has anyone tried to attach the screen frame to the screen wall with velcro? this would enable you to forego using z-bars and drilling mounting brackets into the back of the frame. just trying to think outside the box! lol



You don't need to mount anything to the frame if you use the mounting kit provided. It hangs from the top section of the frame.


----------



## nickbuol




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *azula* /forum/post/22045511
> 
> 
> has anyone tried to attach the screen frame to the screen wall with velcro? this would enable you to forego using z-bars and drilling mounting brackets into the back of the frame. just trying to think outside the box! lol



If you are building your own frame, like I did, there would be some advantages to a Velcro attachment method. I went with 2 Z-Bars, and they made the top of the frame stick away from the false wall due to their design. I knew that this would happen, so I just "propped" out the bottom with little rubber cabinet bumpers (about 1"x1" self stick square pieces that I stuck to the false wall framing)


Velcro should work, but the trick will be:

1) You want enough Velcro so that it sticks and doesn't slowly slide down over time.

2) You don't want too much Velcro that you have a hard time getting the screen removed from the wall.


Maybe some system with a small ledge or even pegs at the bottom to hold it square and support some weight, and then some small Velcro pieces at spaces around the frame to hold it against the false wall.


Just tossing out ideas. The simplest seems to be just adding something to the bottom to push it out in order to make it vertical...


----------



## azula




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nickbuol* /forum/post/22046365
> 
> 
> If you are building your own frame, like I did, there would be some advantages to a Velcro attachment method. I went with 2 Z-Bars, and they made the top of the frame stick away from the false wall due to their design. I knew that this would happen, so I just "propped" out the bottom with little rubber cabinet bumpers (about 1"x1" self stick square pieces that I stuck to the false wall framing)
> 
> 
> Velcro should work, but the trick will be:
> 
> 1) You want enough Velcro so that it sticks and doesn't slowly slide down over time.
> 
> 2) You don't want too much Velcro that you have a hard time getting the screen removed from the wall.
> 
> 
> Maybe some system with a small ledge or even pegs at the bottom to hold it square and support some weight, and then some small Velcro pieces at spaces around the frame to hold it against the false wall.
> 
> 
> Just tossing out ideas. The simplest seems to be just adding something to the bottom to push it out in order to make it vertical...




This is my situation as well. I'm not too worried about supporting the weight of the frame with velcro. The panels on my screen wall are secured with velcro and they aren't going anywhere! lol. Also, the panels are friction fit which will support some of the weight of the frame as well. I will try the velcro method and report back. Thanks so much for the info!


----------



## nickbuol

Just remember that Velcro is a strong thing. You can always add more, but too much can be tricky.


I would actually recommend putting the "fuzzy" side all the way around the frame, and then just put the hook side in smaller strips on the false wall. That way you don't have to get things lined up 100% perfect.


----------



## chriscmore

Here's a great CIH installation over in the Dedicated HT forum:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1411861 


The only thing I'd suggest is to try and darken down more surfaces, but this is a great example of a very well thought out application and top performing equipment.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## studlygoorite

Ordered my 174" Seymour Center Stage XD Curved AT Scope Screen 3 weeks ago, hope to give my impressions soon.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/22079331
> 
> 
> Ordered my 174" Seymour Center Stage XD Curved AT Scope Screen 3 weeks ago, hope to give my impressions soon.



That's a nice big screen, looking forward to your impressions - AND PICTURES!


----------



## Mike Garrett

Thought I would show a current picture of my set up. 107" wide curved scope screen with EN4K fabric, JTR T8 speakers behind the screen and a JVC RS45 with Prismasonic HD6000F lens.








[/IMG]








[/IMG]

The second inverted projector is my son's gaming projector. A 720 P Planar. The two subs in the front are DIY sealed 12" TC Sounds drivers and I have two more, largeer subs in the back of the room. All equipment is remote located.


Denon 4311

Four pro amps for speakers and subs.

Lumagen Mini 3D

PS3

HD DVD (A35)

HTPC (Intel I3)


Going from 16:9 to scope really provides the wow factor. Image is very sharp and detailed. I need to do some clean up, place the covers back on the electrical boxes and a little wire management. Black sound panels and bass traps behind the screen. The sound panels and bass traps at the back of the room are not white. They are gray. The black walls mess with the camera settings in auto and over expose the images, making the gray panels look white. Love the image on EN4K. Using the projector on normal (low lamp mode) cinema and have the iris closed down 3/4's of the way. Great looking image and sound in this room.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5* /forum/post/22095410
> 
> 
> Thought I would show a current picture of my set up. 107" wide curved scope screen with EN4K fabric, JTR T8 speakers behind the screen and a JVC RS45 with Prismasonic HD6000F lens.
> 
> 
> ...Great looking image and sound in this room.



Show off.










Cheers,

Chris


----------



## tbraden32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thought I would show a current picture of my set up. 107" wide curved scope screen with EN4K fabric, JTR T8 speakers behind the screen and a JVC RS45 with Prismasonic HD6000F lens.
> 
> [/IMG]
> 
> [/IMG]
> 
> The second inverted projector is my son's gaming projector. A 720 P Planar. The two subs in the front are DIY sealed 12" TC Sounds drivers and I have two more, largeer subs in the back of the room. All equipment is remote located.
> 
> 
> Denon 4311
> 
> Four pro amps for speakers and subs.
> 
> Lumagen Mini 3D
> 
> PS3
> 
> HD DVD (A35)
> 
> HTPC (Intel I3)
> 
> 
> Going from 16:9 to scope really provides the wow factor. Image is very sharp and detailed. I need to do some clean up, place the covers back on the electrical boxes and a little wire management. Black sound panels and bass traps behind the screen. The sound panels and bass traps at the back of the room are not white. They are gray. The black walls mess with the camera settings in auto and over expose the images, making the gray panels look white. Love the image on EN4K. Using the projector on normal (low lamp mode) cinema and have the iris closed down 3/4's of the way. Great looking image and sound in this room.



Is 107" big enough depending on seating? I have room for only a 105", and want to make sure it's worth it?


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbraden32* /forum/post/22095515
> 
> 
> Is 107" big enough depending on seating? I have room for only a 105", and want to make sure it's worth it?



105" wide is a nice sized scope image. What is your viewing distance? To get that size of a scope image on a 16:9 screen would require a 121" diagonal screen.


----------



## Larry M

I'm beginning to wish I went scope due to the height of 16:9 but I think i'll manage in the end


----------



## tbraden32

Seating can go back as far as needed. But I'm limited to height and width. I can get a wider screen by going 2.35. But my 16:9 image will suffer.


Thinking of seating around 12 ft or so.?


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Screen size preference differs a lot between people - I'm at 12' from a 136" wide screen, and love it.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbraden32* /forum/post/22096212
> 
> 
> Seating can go back as far as needed. But I'm limited to height and width. I can get a wider screen by going 2.35. But my 16:9 image will suffer.
> 
> 
> Thinking of seating around 12 ft or so.?



I am 9'-6" from the 107" wide. Try it at 12', you may be perfectly happy at that distance. You can always move closer later on.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M* /forum/post/22095985
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to wish I went scope due to the height of 16:9 but I think i'll manage in the end



I think you will be able to manage.







Now quit trying to give us screen size envy.


----------



## adidino

My first row is about 11ft from a 120 inch wide 2.35 XD and I love it. Sony VW1000 for that distance helps too


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbraden32* /forum/post/22096212
> 
> 
> Seating can go back as far as needed. But I'm limited to height and width. I can get a wider screen by going 2.35. But my 16:9 image will suffer.
> 
> 
> Thinking of seating around 12 ft or so.?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5* /forum/post/22096685
> 
> 
> I am 10'-6" from the 107" wide. Try it at 12", you may be perfectly happy at that distance. You can always move closer later on.



As Mike say's you can always move closer. If your 16:9 becomes smaller when you go for a 2.35 screen, just move the seats closer so they are at the same relative distance as a screen height to distance ratio.


For example, if your current 16:9 screen height to seating distance is around 3 to 1 (screen height is 4 feet high and you sit 12 feet back), and your new 2.35 screen is 3.5 feet tall, just move your seats so they are 10.5 feet back. That way the 16:9 image will look the same size visually as it did before from 12 feet back, except now, scope movies will feel a lot more immersive, as you've retained the same 3:1 seating ratio (you can go closer if you like, experiment to see what works best for you).


That's exactly what I did when I went from a 7 foot wide 16:9 screen to an 8 foot wide scope screen. From 12 feet back 16:9 did look small, but from 10.5 feet back it looked just fine, but scope movies were just so much more immersive and had an even greater visual impact.


Seating distance is very important when going for a 2.35 screen so that 16:9 isn't compromised.


Gary


----------



## tbraden32

Great info guys.....Thanks!


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1710#post_22097185
> 
> 
> As Mike say's you can always move closer. If your 16:9 becomes smaller when you go for a 2.35 screen, just move the seats closer so they are at the same relative distance as a screen height to distance ratio.



I couldn't get comfortable with a 2.35:1 size that supported the level of immersion I wanted for 16:9 - so went with more of a Constant Image Height setup, at 2.125:1 - a road less traveled, but I'm happy with it.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1710#post_22103329
> 
> 
> I couldn't get comfortable with a 2.35:1 size that supported the level of immersion I wanted for 16:9 - so went with more of a Constant Image Height setup, at 2.125:1 - a road less traveled, but I'm happy with it.




Are you cropping the sides of the image when watching scope? How are you constant height with a 2.125:1 aspect ratio screen?


----------



## quack724




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1710#post_22078433
> 
> 
> Here's a great CIH installation over in the Dedicated HT forum:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1411861
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I'd suggest is to try and darken down more surfaces, but this is a great example of a very well thought out application and top performing equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Chris




Thanks Chris. Agree I should darken the walls & ceiling, Darn WAF







We love the screen. Guests who demo love the screen. Picture is wonderful. Definitely as advertised










Also, thanks again for the tips on the Imax reveal. My blue LEDs do not appear to be as bright as those shown on your website but overall I'm happy with the outcome!


----------



## studlygoorite


IMG_0135.JPG 2740k .JPG file


Well it's big and it's here. Will install on the weekend.


----------



## studlygoorite

I am now going to have to place my Paradigm S8s and C5 Center very close to the back wall behind my screen, any suggestions as to anything I can do to help with the sound like maybe place a bass trap behind each speaker or at least accoustic panels?


John


----------



## BobL

2" fiberglass panels behind the speakers hsould work fine


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1710#post_22105058
> 
> IMG_0135.JPG 2740k .JPG file
> 
> Well it's big and it's here. Will install on the weekend.



That is one loooong box!


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1710#post_22105376
> 
> 
> I am now going to have to place my Paradigm S8s and C5 Center very close to the back wall behind my screen, any suggestions as to anything I can do to help with the sound like maybe place a bass trap behind each speaker or at least accoustic panels?
> 
> John



I think the latest is 1" JM linacoustic, 4-6mil plastic, 1" JM linacoustic


For the corners, triangle cut pieces of OC70x or an equivalent product...which products I'm not sure but I am researching since I can't find OC70x locally


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1710#post_22106471
> 
> 
> I think the latest is 1" JM linacoustic, 4-6mil plastic, 1" JM linacoustic
> 
> For the corners, triangle cut pieces of OC70x or an equivalent product...which products I'm not sure but I am researching since I can't find OC70x locally



Larry,


You mean layered as in 1" JM Linacoustic first over the drywall THEN 4-6 mil plastic over it and THEN 1" Linacoustic again over the plastic as in a sandwich?










Can you direct me to where this technique was discussed?


...Glenn


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22107631
> 
> 
> Larry,
> 
> You mean layered as in 1" JM Linacoustic first over the drywall THEN 4-6 mil plastic over it and THEN 1" Linacoustic again over the plastic as in a sandwich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you direct me to where this technique was discussed?
> 
> ...Glenn



Yes that is exactly what I meant. I believe this is something Dennis Erskine has recommended so that is usually good information. I can't remember which thread I read it in but I have seen it more than once. I'm not at my stage design yet so I haven't put the time in yet but once I do I plan to verify everything


----------



## tbraden32

^^

Have read this multiple times lately too in several threads that DE designed.


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1710#post_22106471
> 
> 
> I think the latest is 1" JM linacoustic, 4-6mil plastic, 1" JM linacoustic
> 
> For the corners, triangle cut pieces of OC70x or an equivalent product...which products I'm not sure but I am researching since I can't find OC70x locally



Thanks for this, would this just cover behind each speaker or the whole front wall?


----------



## studlygoorite


newscreen3.JPG 435k .JPG file


Well it's up and I've got the WOW factor back, this thing is huge and the picture quality, that large, is still quite good. 174" 3D is much better







and the installation was a breeze. I now have to purchase a new camera that has a wide angle lens to post more picks, this is just my iphone 4s.


John


----------



## jkscherk

Any of you guys using a curved Seymour screen.....


Did you have any challenges hanging it on the supplied brackets? My 120" wide 2.40:1 won't stay on when I try to hang it. Each time I get one side on and move over to the other side to hang that one, the first one pops off. Tried it about 5 times with 3 people trying to get it done. It seems to pivot around the center of the screen such that the curve of the frame member doesn't really match the curve set-up by the hanger bracket. Anyone have an idea?


----------



## jkscherk

Chris C answered my email. He gave me a recco for a solution. I will try it and report back.


----------



## Nedtsc

Great looking! Are you going to mask the sides?


----------



## AndreasMergner

Hi,


I have a 145" diagonal CA (constant area) Center Stage XD DIY screen. I am sitting 12' back and I like it a lot....for 2D. I can see the weave pattern when I use my PC with white screens if I look for it, but typically don't see any weave in movie content unless the image has a bunch of white clouds or such. It is not perfect, but acceptable. I recently bought a 3D PJ and I find that the 3D is very distracting to watch because the weave can be see as a bunch of haze at the depth of the screen. This makes my eyes strain a lot since they are trying to focus on either behind the screen or in front of the screen and also at the "haze". I haven't watched any 3D for months because of it and it's a bit disappointing since I spent a bit extra to get 3D. There is tilt on the weave (about 10-12 degrees) and the PJ is an Epson 5010.


I bought the material in Nov 2010. I don't think the material has changed to a tighter weave, has it? Now, I'm considering changing screen fabrics, but not sure if what I'm experiencing is "normal", if I have made some error or if my eyes are especially good/sensitive.


Thanks for any help you can give!


Andreas


----------



## Riddick

Hi Andreas,


I have the same problem with my XD Screen. 130"scope screen, seating distance is 11,5 feet. Every now and then you can see the diagonal weave wich is indeed a little distracting. My screen is from August 2011. So I guess there is no tighter weave available...


----------



## BobL

The enlightor 4K is a tighter weave and better than the XD. You can be a lot closer before you notice the texture. A little more pricey.


----------



## studlygoorite

Just installed my 174" and sit 14' back, the weave is not a problem for me, I am very pleased with this screen. The 4k is quite a bit more expensive than the XD material.


----------



## nickbuol

Yea, I agree with studly, it is quite a bit more expensive for the 4K.


I just got my material in May and sit 12' from a 138" XD screen. I've only watched movies and TV on it and don't notice the weave. I've asked others if they have too, and nobody has yet. Of course, the size of the screen doesn't directly impact one's ability to see or not see the weave, but I thought I would mention the size.


----------



## fight4yu

I think I only see the weave pattern when I am about 9-10ft away. At 12, I could not say I see it...


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1710#post_22104109
> 
> 
> Are you cropping the sides of the image when watching scope? How are you constant height with a 2.125:1 aspect ratio screen?



Typo on my part - Constant Image Area, not Height. No, I don't crop the sides, I have black bars on the top and bottom for cinemascope, on the sides for 16:9 - doesn't bother me yet, if/when it does, I'll invest in masking.


----------



## AndreasMergner

I was sitting about 15' back and had no problems. 12' back and 2d is fine, but not perfect. 3d at 12' is a problem though.


Can just the enlightor 4K fabric be bought? My screen is DIY.


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BobL*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22156491
> 
> 
> The enlightor 4K is a tighter weave and better than the XD. You can be a lot closer before you notice the texture. A little more pricey.



I don't know if I would agree it's better. I've compared both and although you can not see the weave on the 4k screen at closer distances (8-9ft or less) the overall image is a bit darker, image is less vibrant and there's less pop. The material is also much more delicate (almost like a sheer curtain). I preferred and went with the XD material for my VW1000. I'm sitting about 10ft away or so and I have no issue.


----------



## Nedtsc

It looks like it is an issue with XD more so with 3D at close range.

Studly, do you plan to mask your curve screen?

I concur with Adidino on his comparison.


----------



## AndreasMergner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adidino*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22157821
> 
> 
> I don't know if I would agree it's better. I've compared both and although you can not see the weave on the 4k screen at closer distances (8-9ft or less) the overall image is a bit darker, image is less vibrant and there's less pop. The material is also much more delicate (almost like a sheer curtain). I preferred and went with the XD material for my VW1000. I'm sitting about 10ft away or so and I have no issue.



Sounds very similar to some white spandex that I sampled when compared to the XD. I will have to compare it to a sample of the 4K to see if it is worth the price difference. The spandex was $35 for a 145"+ screen.


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22158026
> 
> 
> It looks like it is an issue with XD more so with 3D at close range.
> 
> Studly, do you plan to mask your curve screen?
> 
> I concur with Adidino on his comparison.



Nedtsc I have no plans to mask my screen.


John


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adidino*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22157821
> 
> 
> I don't know if I would agree it's better. I've compared both and although you can not see the weave on the 4k screen at closer distances (8-9ft or less) the overall image is a bit darker, image is less vibrant and there's less pop. The material is also much more delicate (almost like a sheer curtain). I preferred and went with the XD material for my VW1000. I'm sitting about 10ft away or so and I have no issue.



I have owned both. When the screen size is matched up nicely with the projector the image on EN4K is very, very good. With equal Foot Lamberts and a viewing distance of 11' or less, I would be surprised if anybody picked XD over EN4K. Placing a small sample of EN4K on your XD screen is going to give a big disadvantage to the EN4K, due to the lower gain of the EN4K. Of course with EN4K it is going to take more lumens to light up the same size screen compared to XD.


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22168507
> 
> 
> I have owned both. When the screen size is matched up nicely with the projector the image on EN4K is very, very good. With equal Foot Lamberts and a viewing distance of 11' or less, I would be surprised if anybody picked XD over EN4K. Placing a small sample of EN4K on your XD screen is going to give a big disadvantage to the EN4K, due to the lower gain of the EN4K. Of course with EN4K it is going to take more lumens to light up the same size screen compared to XD.



Agree with Mike


Projectors will get brighter over time thus I didn't mind getting the EN4K and giving up a good amount of gain. By the time I get my projector and screen unboxed we should have quad LED HID Fiber Optic Lightning Bolts technology so I'll be ready to upgrade










Also went with a 16:9 because I could always switch to 2:40 or whatever the next common ratio is by getting smaller side frames.


One thing I am terrified with the EN4K is the screen getting dirty. I fear the day Mark Sanchez or Tim Tebow throw an interception in the Super Bowl that cause us to lose the game...I can see a cup of Wild Cherry Pepsi coming in contact with the screen.


----------



## robfive

Hey guys,


I am getting ready to build my diy frame but I cannot recall what spacing is recommended from the grommets to the posts on the frame that the o-rings attach to. I ordered the Centerstage XD material with the grommets already installed. From the pictures on the website it looks like around 1.5 inches from the center of the grommets to the posts but I would rather not just make a guess.


Can someone help me out with this dimension?


Thanks.


----------



## Nedtsc

I've tried a small sample of XD viewing 3D using JVC RS 45. No sign of pattern or weave at 10'. Will try a larger sample. The concern of course is the price otherwise EN4K is no brainer. It's about 3x if I recall right.


----------



## quack724




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robfive*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22182264
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> I am getting ready to build my diy frame but I cannot recall what spacing is recommended from the grommets to the posts on the frame that the o-rings attach to. I ordered the Centerstage XD material with the grommets already installed. From the pictures on the website it looks like around 1.5 inches from the center of the grommets to the posts but I would rather not just make a guess.
> 
> Can someone help me out with this dimension?
> 
> Thanks.



Robfive, if you have not already , is to PM or give Chris a call. Since he makes these I'm sure he'd give the exact distance.


Sorry this does not directly help you. My screen is already installed and is hard to take off and re-mount by myself , otherwise I'd measure for you.


----------



## robfive




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robfive*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22182264
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> I am getting ready to build my diy frame but I cannot recall what spacing is recommended from the grommets to the posts on the frame that the o-rings attach to. I ordered the Centerstage XD material with the grommets already installed. From the pictures on the website it looks like around 1.5 inches from the center of the grommets to the posts but I would rather not just make a guess.
> 
> Can someone help me out with this dimension?
> 
> Thanks.



I spoke with Chris this morning on the phone and he recommended starting with an 1.5" spacing from the grommet to the post (bolt, screw, whatever you are using) in the frame. He also suggested trying a couple on each end of the screen to see if the tension was appropriate before installing all of the posts in the frame.


I plan to build the frame on Wednesday and I'll report back how the spacing turned out.


----------



## tbraden32

Pictures too!


----------



## zheka

Do people upgrade existing fixed frame screens with seymour AT material?

I currently use 120" visual apex screen. Would I be able to refit it with centerstage XD?


Thank you


----------



## zheka

is EN4K sold by SeymourAV? I could only find prices for the centerstage XD at http://seymourav.com/store.asp 


is there any competition to Seymour AT material with similar price/performance ratio?


thank you


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22170737
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I am terrified with the EN4K is the screen getting dirty. I fear the day Mark Sanchez or Tim Tebow throw an interception in the Super Bowl that cause us to lose the game...I can see a cup of Wild Cherry Pepsi coming in contact with the screen.



Tebow, yes..........................Sanchez, no!


----------



## quack724




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zheka*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22187307
> 
> 
> is EN4K sold by SeymourAV? I could only find prices for the centerstage XD at http://seymourav.com/store.asp
> 
> is there any competition to Seymour AT material with similar price/performance ratio?
> 
> thank you



EN4K can be purchased from http://www.s-se.us/ .


Edit.. Also forgot to mention that AVS carries EN4K line.


----------



## zheka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quack724*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22187348
> 
> 
> EN4K can be purchased from http://www.s-se.us/ .
> 
> Edit.. Also forgot to mention that AVS carries EN4K line.


Thank you. Do you know how much more expensive it is compared to the center stage material? I am having hard time finding any prices for EN4K


----------



## quack724




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zheka*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22188738
> 
> 
> Thank you. Do you know how much more expensive it is compared to the center stage material? I am having hard time finding any prices for EN4K



When I queried for myself, I think it was roughly 3x for 125 inch wide 2.37 AR. Not sure about 16:9 if that is what you are looking for.


Edit.. Sorry I just checked my actual paid for XD vs quoted EN4K and it was more like 2.5x . If you decide to get the black backing for the XD, there will be an incremental cost as well. My understanding is that the EN4K includes the black backing as part of the overall cost.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quack724*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22188862
> 
> 
> When I queried for myself, I think it was roughly 3x for 125 inch wide 2.37 AR. Not sure about 16:9 if that is what you are looking for.
> 
> Edit.. Sorry I just checked my actual paid for XD vs quoted EN4K and it was more like 2.5x . If you decide to get the black backing for the XD, there will be an incremental cost as well. My understanding is that the EN4K includes the black backing as part of the overall cost.



Also EN4K is quoted delivered and Center Stage has shipping on top of it.


----------



## zheka

Thank you.

is it possible to buy EN-4K fabric or it's only sold as complete screens?


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *doublewing11*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22187336
> 
> 
> Tebow, yes..........................Sanchez, no!



I hope Tebow doesn't take too many passes away from Mark. Tebow is so terrible.


Hoping for our friend from USC to have a big year in Green and White


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zheka*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22189201
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> is it possible to buy EN-4K fabric or it's only sold as complete screens?



I think someone outside the US was able to buy just the EN4K as a "contractor kit" or something like that. But in the US it comes as 1 great package...screen, beefier frame, black backing, shipping, and smiles


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Larry M*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22170737
> 
> 
> Agree with Mike
> 
> Projectors will get brighter over time thus I didn't mind getting the EN4K and giving up a good amount of gain. By the time I get my projector and screen unboxed we should have quad LED HID Fiber Optic Lightning Bolts technology so I'll be ready to upgrade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also went with a 16:9 because I could always switch to 2:40 or whatever the next common ratio is by getting smaller side frames.
> 
> One thing I am terrified with the EN4K is the screen getting dirty. I fear the day Mark Sanchez or Tim Tebow throw an interception in the Super Bowl that cause us to lose the game...I can see a cup of Wild Cherry Pepsi coming in contact with the screen.



Recommended game day cup for you: http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=spill+proof+sippy+cups&tag=googhydr-20&index=baby&hvadid=7977753367&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=432764331181719195&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_fqs7huacd_b


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22193675
> 
> 
> Recommended game day cup for you: http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=spill+proof+sippy+cups&tag=googhydr-20&index=baby&hvadid=7977753367&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=432764331181719195&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_fqs7huacd_b



I don't think they'll fit in my cup holders










I need a big boy sippy cup


----------



## Larry M

How have I not purchased this for my nephew yet


----------



## Mike Garrett

Larry, how is your HT coming along?


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22195004
> 
> 
> Larry, how is your HT coming along?



Very good










Received my 150' of conduit on Friday and will be running it today. Also picking up 600' of insulation at HD in a few hours...I wonder how I will fit that in the Trans Am










OSB and sheetrock are about 10 days away


----------



## robfive

I built the frame and installed the Centerstage XD material over the weekend. Due to a miscalculation, I ended up with 1.25" from the center of the grommet to the center of the post. This spacing worked very well with the O-rings supplied by SeymourAV. I used 1x4 finger joined pine for the frame and one inch long #10 wood screws for the posts. I did not use any center braces in the frame since the frame was installed directly to my false wall framing. The frame is about 10' x 6' and the longest unsupported length is about 7.5'. The 1x4 appears to be stiff enough not to need any center braces across the 7.5' expanse.


I have not installed the projector and I am still building the speakers, so I cannot commit on the performance but the installation went well.


I'll try to get some pictures posted soon.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robfive*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740#post_22184684
> 
> 
> I spoke with Chris this morning on the phone and he recommended starting with an 1.5" spacing from the grommet to the post (bolt, screw, whatever you are using) in the frame. He also suggested trying a couple on each end of the screen to see if the tension was appropriate before installing all of the posts in the frame.
> 
> I plan to build the frame on Wednesday and I'll report back how the spacing turned out.


----------



## blipszyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robfive*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22203685
> 
> 
> I built the frame and installed the Centerstage XD material over the weekend. Due to a miscalculation, I ended up with 1.25" from the center of the grommet to the center of the post. This spacing worked very well with the O-rings supplied by SeymourAV. I used 1x4 finger joined pine for the frame and one inch long #10 wood screws for the posts. I did not use any center braces in the frame since the frame was installed directly to my false wall framing. The frame is about 10' x 6' and the longest unsupported length is about 7.5'. The 1x4 appears to be stiff enough not to need any center braces across the 7.5' expanse.
> 
> I have not installed the projector and I am still building the speakers, so I cannot commit on the performance but the installation went well.
> 
> I'll try to get some pictures posted soon.


Pictures would be great as I believe my screen is going to be about the same size as yours and I would love to save a few $$ and do the DIY frame. Did you order the velvet from Seymour too?


----------



## Nedtsc

Larry, you got a message.


----------



## robfive

 http://www.avsforum.com/image/id/1157518/width/600/height/499[/IMG][/URL ]


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blipszyc*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22206086
> 
> 
> Pictures would be great as I believe my screen is going to be about the same size as yours and I would love to save a few $$ and do the DIY frame. Did you order the velvet from Seymour too?



I did not buy my velvet from SeymourAV. I was going to but then I realized that it was priced per foot and not per yard. I am going to build velvet panels for my entire front wall, not just a border around the screen, so I will need a decent amount of fabric. I plan to order some from Sy Fabrics as recommended on SeymourAV's diy page. I have used the black plush triple velvet from Sy Fabrics before for another frame and it turned out well.


I joined my frame with strips of 1/4" mdf and #6 wood screws. After joining two of the corners I measured the diagonals to verify they were the same. This told me that the frame was squared properly, and then I joined the last two corners. When the frame was assembled I screwed it to two of the false wall uprights that are about 7.5' apart. Then, I installed a couple of the #10 wood screws that acted as the posts for the O-rings and began to attach the fabric to the frame. Once I saw that the O-ring tension was good I installed the rest of the posts and O-rings.


If you would like a better picture I can take a couple with my dslr; its battery was dead at the time of this post.


----------



## 235




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740_60#post_22183208
> 
> 
> I've tried a small sample of XD viewing 3D using JVC RS 45. No sign of pattern or weave at 10'. Will try a larger sample. The concern of course is the price otherwise EN4K is no brainer. It's about 3x if I recall right.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AndreasMergner*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1740_60#post_22155251
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a 145" diagonal CA (constant area) Center Stage XD DIY screen. I am sitting 12' back and I like it a lot....for 2D. I can see the weave pattern when I use my PC with white screens if I look for it, but typically don't see any weave in movie content unless the image has a bunch of white clouds or such. It is not perfect, but acceptable. I recently bought a 3D PJ and I find that the 3D is very distracting to watch because the weave can be see as a bunch of haze at the depth of the screen. This makes my eyes strain a lot since they are trying to focus on either behind the screen or in front of the screen and also at the "haze". I haven't watched any 3D for months because of it and it's a bit disappointing since I spent a bit extra to get 3D. There is tilt on the weave (about 10-12 degrees) and the PJ is an Epson 5010.
> 
> I bought the material in Nov 2010. I don't think the material has changed to a tighter weave, has it? Now, I'm considering changing screen fabrics, but not sure if what I'm experiencing is "normal", if I have made some error or if my eyes are especially good/sensitive.
> 
> Thanks for any help you can give!
> 
> Andreas




You guys aren't allowed to have conflicting opinions, it makes my life harder










Does anyone else have 3D, notice any problems with weave at around 11' eyeballs?

.

.


----------



## studlygoorite

I have a 174" and sit 14' back and have no problem, I am very pleased with this screen. I will move up to 11' my next 3D movie and let you know.


----------



## adude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *235*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22215361
> 
> 
> You guys aren't allowed to have conflicting opinions, it makes my life harder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have 3D, notice any problems with weave at around 11' eyeballs?
> 
> .
> 
> .


I do see the weave in 2D from 11~12 ft away.

I notice it in 3D ONLY if I am looking for it, in scenes that have white contents. Thats very hard too. 3d glasses perhaps are adding some sorts of blur which causes the weave to disappear.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Maybe just because the image is dimmer it's harder to see. The glasses dim the image quite a bit - by maybe 50%?


Gary


----------



## AndreasMergner

I have a sample of enlightenor 4k in as of yesterday so I should be able to tell if my issue is my screen or pj.


Also 3d light levels are at most 25% with the polarization and the glasses only being on half the time for l and r. My 5010 is very bright though.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *235*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22215361
> 
> 
> You guys aren't allowed to have conflicting opinions, it makes my life harder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have 3D, notice any problems with weave at around 11' eyeballs?
> 
> .
> 
> .



Don't know about 3D, but for 2D, I noticed the weave at 11'. This only occurred on bright scenes like clouds or sand. Using EN4K now at a viewing distance of around 9' (107" wide scope) no visable weave.


----------



## chriscmore

FYI, we started changing to a different host for the website, which apparently takes 24 to 48 hours for all the servers to update. If things go smoothly we'll be back up hopefully over the weekend.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## deromax

Well, I'm building a new AT screen! My curent one suffers from a design flaw (my fault). It's a tad too small to accomodate the projector distance and zoom so I have about 2 inches of overscan with 16:9 content. I tolerated it for nearly 3 years, but now it's going to be replaced!


I'm speading the expenses! I have just ordered the black velvet border tape from eBay, I'll order the Seymour fabric next month and finally buy the frame material and assemble the thing sometime this fall.


----------



## TedO

Chris,


Will you manning the both at Cedia this year and what are you intending to display? I am planning to spend one day there and am interested in what I will be able to see at your booth.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TedO*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22282636
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Will you manning the both at Cedia this year and what are you intending to display? I am planning to spend one day there and am interested in what I will be able to see at your booth.



Indeed, both Patrice and I will be at booth 1439 for the Seymour-Screen Excellence brand. We'll be showing the new Absolute (curved fixed frame, 4K, with motorized AT side masks, 2.37 to full close), the new masking retractable (dual roller 2.37 to 16:9, 4K, with drop down AT side panels), and possibly a plain vanilla solid screen line for the dealer/installer channel. Also, we'll have a spacious 148.5" wide 2.37 ratio Enlightor-4K screen in the Procella Audio sound room #7. They've always put on a very impressive demo - 300lb sound doors and all. I think it's a DPI projector, too. They'll be building a full baffle wall, so it'll be reference quality all the way.


For S-SE updates, I'd recommend the facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Seymour-Screen-Excellence/143253752362177 


For Seymour AV updates, I like to come here.










Cheers,

Chris


----------



## deromax

Is the 63 inches wide DIY material still available? I don't see it in the price list!


----------



## Chuck Back




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22284061
> 
> 
> Also, we'll have a spacious 148.5" wide 2.37 ratio Enlightor-4K screen in the Procella Audio sound room #7. They've always put on a very impressive demo - 300lb sound doors and all. I think it's a DPI projector, too. They'll be building a full baffle wall, so it'll be reference quality all the way.



Thanks for the kind words, Chris. We're actually going to have the Avielo native 2.35:1 projector, along with a Datasat RS20i processor, our own amps, Quest acoustical design and a Kaleidescape. We used the same screen at ISE in Amsterdam earlier this year.


Chuck Back

Procella Audio


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22287462
> 
> 
> Is the 63 inches wide DIY material still available? I don't see it in the price list!



No, we haven't made the 63" wide in quite a while. It just wasn't wide enough to accommodate the tilted cuts for the fixed frame screens and the low volumes didn't prove to be worth the dimensional savings. We may do 70-80" wide in the future, but so far the numbers haven't worked out. As source and projector quality improve, we're seeing people wanting ever larger screens, so I think we'll stick to the 98" wide rolls for the time being.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## deromax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1770#post_22289517
> 
> 
> No, we haven't made the 63" wide in quite a while.



Oh.


I understand your choice on a buisness point, if it was not selling well. But it's unfortunate as the 63 inches size was great for 2.35 screens when minimal or no tilt was requiered. 98 inches will produce massive left over material and change the project cost substantially!


Well, whatever is needed.. 98 inches material will be it!


----------



## nickbuol

I hear you. I bought 12 feet of the 98" stuff for my 138" (1.78:1) screen. I didn't need tilting, but tilted it anyway for good measure. There wasn't a ton of room to tilt since it is 1.78:1 and not 2.35:1, but there was a lot of leftover scraps.


----------



## Reference_head

Few pics of the new screen (125” 2.35). I have nothing to compare it to but it looks really nice (thanks Chris).







The projector is a jvc rs45. 
screnn 002.JPG 1163k .JPG file
screnn 003.JPG 1167k .JPG file
screen2 012.JPG 1914k .JPG file


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Reference_head*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22301690
> 
> 
> Few pics of the new screen (125” 2.35). I have nothing to compare it to but it looks really nice (thanks Chris).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The projector is a jvc rs45.
> screnn 002.JPG 1163k .JPG file
> screnn 003.JPG 1167k .JPG file
> screen2 012.JPG 1914k .JPG file



Very nice - looking sweet. If you're like me you get excited when you learn the flick is in scope ratio.


I'd recommend possibly raising your center channel a few inches since you have room under the flat panel. Oh, and take those blue masking tape strips off the bar...










Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Skylinestar

I've read the DIY frame guide here . The screen is attached to the frame using staples.

Will the screen become loose/sag after a few years? How can the tension be adjusted in the future?


----------



## edfowler

One screen of mine has gotten saggy but I attached it with velcro so I just zip it off and reattach it all tight and all.


The other screen I have that is stapled to the frame required a brace or two but has stayed tight for years


----------



## secondhander

My screen needed tightening a few weeks after it was up but since then has stayed tight. However, the paneling I've done above & below the screen has loosen a couple of times so far and is also done with staples. They are loose right now and needs tightening actually. Still looks great though.


----------



## GRBoomer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edfowler*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22369549
> 
> 
> One screen of mine has gotten saggy but I attached it with velcro so I just zip it off and reattach it all tight and all.
> 
> The other screen I have that is stapled to the frame required a brace or two but has stayed tight for years



How did you attach the Velcro to the fabric?


----------



## doublewing11

Is this the Seymour-Screen Excellence Tam2 or is this a totally new product. Was wondering due to heading titled Absolute Acoustic screen............


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *doublewing11*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22387740
> 
> 
> Is this the Seymour-Screen Excellence Tam2 or is this a totally new product. Was wondering due to heading titled Absolute Acoustic screen............



That's the Seymour-Screen Excellence "Absolute", which is essentially a True Aspect Masking (TAM) that has a curved frame and full closing masks. It has the Enlightor-4K material, which is the forte of this product line. We also had a video on the retractable with masking panels. While this show unit was also S-SE with the 4K material, we can do this for Seymour AV with the XD material. The masking functionality would be the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eytRONoKnrI 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## mbaysing




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22389202
> 
> 
> We also had a video on the retractable with masking panels. While this show unit was also S-SE with the 4K material, we can do this for Seymour AV with the XD material. The masking functionality would be the same.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eytRONoKnrI
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



That looks awesome. Are the retractable masking panels available in velvet for those that don't need AT on the sides?


----------



## cdika17




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800_100#post_22389202
> 
> 
> ....we can do this for Seymour AV with the XD material. The masking functionality would be the same.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eytRONoKnrI
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Prices and availability for a fixed screen?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mbaysing*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22390081
> 
> 
> That looks awesome. Are the retractable masking panels available in velvet for those that don't need AT on the sides?



I'm not planning on doing it with velvet panels since velvet doesn't roll up straight without some difficulty; it wants to cone off to one side or the other. I'd be willing to try it, but I'm thinking we'd need to figure out some tricks to keep it well behaved.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cdika17*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22390948
> 
> 
> Prices and availability for a fixed screen?



No plans on a Seymour AV fixed frame screen with motorized masks if that's what you mean. If you're interested in the S-SE with the Enlightor-4K material, we have several fixed frame masking screen configurations I can refer you to a dealer or custom installer for.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## tbraden32

^^^can you order direct for DIY? And of course save a few benji's


----------



## cdika17




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800_100#post_22393810
> 
> 
> No plans on a Seymour AV fixed frame screen with motorized masks if that's what you mean. If you're interested in the S-SE with the Enlightor-4K material, we have several fixed frame masking screen configurations I can refer you to a dealer or custom installer for.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



So for the fixed frame you just have the masking panels then? Or what would you recommend I use? Planning the new JVC RS48 when is comes out.


----------



## bkeeler10

Does anyone know if the Seymour Screen Excellence Enlightor 2 screen is made with the same material as the CenterStage XD screen is? Thanks.


----------



## cdika17

 http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/screens.asp 
http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/materials.asp 

I believe it's a new 4k fabric.


----------



## mbaysing

I think Enlightor 2 _is_ the same thing as Center Stage XD. Same graphs:

http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/materials.asp 
http://seymourav.com/screens.asp 


The photo at the first link also looks very much like my own XD screen.


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22389202
> 
> 
> That's the Seymour-Screen Excellence "Absolute", which is essentially a True Aspect Masking (TAM) that has a curved frame and full closing masks. It has the Enlightor-4K material, which is the forte of this product line. We also had a video on the retractable with masking panels. While this show unit was also S-SE with the 4K material, we can do this for Seymour AV with the XD material. The masking functionality would be the same.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eytRONoKnrI
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



So is this new curved screen more coin than the TAM2? You mentioned that the "Absolute Acoustic" screen with masks is available with the XD material..............is it discounted significantly due to screen material and is the screen attachment different since you need the fabric specific tool for the 4k material?


If I can ever sell my house...........this is the screen I intend to use/purchase ie. TAM2 either with Enlightor 4k or XD.


----------



## jbanta

Does anyone have a ph # for Chris at Seymour? I see their contact form on their website is out of order (has been for a couple weeks now) so tried sending him 2 emails asking for info and a quote on the centerstage material for a 110" 16:9 DIY project but never heard back.


It's been at least 10 days now since i first tried contacting him so not sure if he's having email issues or if phone is just the best way to go.


----------



## rx-8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbanta*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22403828
> 
> 
> Does anyone have a ph # for Chris at Seymour? I see their contact form on their website is out of order (has been for a couple weeks now) so tried sending him 2 emails asking for info and a quote on the centerstage material for a 110" 16:9 DIY project but never heard back.
> 
> 
> It's been at least 10 days now since i first tried contacting him so not sure if he's having email issues or if phone is just the best way to go.



Taken from their "About" page.


Contact Us

Phone: 515-450-5694

Off-hours / aux: 515-708-5279

email: ChrisiatlSeymourAVldoticom

Mailing address: 618 Crystal St, Ames, IA 50010

Shipping / facilities address: 2207 229th Place, Ames, IA 50014


----------



## nickbuol

I have email issues too, but a phone call worked for me.


----------



## quack724




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbanta*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22403828
> 
> 
> Does anyone have a ph # for Chris at Seymour? I see their contact form on their website is out of order (has been for a couple weeks now) so tried sending him 2 emails asking for info and a quote on the centerstage material for a 110" 16:9 DIY project but never heard back.
> 
> It's been at least 10 days now since i first tried contacting him so not sure if he's having email issues or if phone is just the best way to go.



Try phone. I called Chris earlier in the week to order some masking panels since I did not hear back from email and he indicated to me he was backlogged on emails due to CEDIA.


----------



## Crabalocker

has anyone compared the xd material to elune vision audio weave??? My friend is looking to buy a screen and if anyone has seen both, their opinion would be greatly appreciated. I have a Xd screen now but have never seen the audio weave.


Thanks


----------



## Jedirun

I had my contractor install my DIY screen made with Centerstage XD material into the wall in front of a closet. It really turned out nice.


----------



## Elix

From what distance can you see weave in the dark when the projector is on?


----------



## Jedirun

In my old setup, I could make it out from about 9 feet.


----------



## Elix

Damn, that's either a sharp eye or a large weave. It won't fit my needs.


----------



## AndreasMergner

I can see it at around 12 feet in scenes with large areas of white (clouds).


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elix*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22533968
> 
> 
> Damn, that's either a sharp eye or a large weave. It won't fit my needs.



For those that are sitting closer to their screens and/or prefer a lower gain, the 4K has no visible features and therefore no minimum seating distance:
http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/materials.asp 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## AndreasMergner

Unfortunately the 4k isn't available for DIY otherwise I would probably have it for my screen.


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AndreasMergner*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22534059
> 
> 
> I can see it at around 12 feet in scenes with large areas of white (clouds).



Your eyes are sharper than mine. From my back row at about 12 feet, I didn't notice it. Even at 9 feet, I would only notice it, if I was looking for it.


----------



## Elix




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22535165
> 
> 
> For those that are sitting closer to their screens and/or prefer a lower gain, the 4K has no visible features and therefore no minimum seating distance:
> http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/materials.asp
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


Where can I get a quote on a custom 4K material screen, Chris?


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elix*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22536107
> 
> 
> Where can I get a quote on a custom 4K material screen, Chris?



Sent you a PM.


----------



## Elix




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22536684
> 
> 
> Sent you a PM.


Thanks! But I failed to mention I'd be needing an international shipping. There's no other option for me, because where I live retailers ask 2x-3x of the retail price.


----------



## steven2583

I'm looking to setup a JVC 4K projector and screen. I'm interested in the Seymour retractable screen. I'm looking at the CenterStage XD and the 4K. My main sitting position is 18 feet back so I don't think I will be able to see the pattern but there will be kids sitting as close as 8 feet. What I'm most concerned about is a Moire pattern. Has anyone see Moire' patterns on the screen. Any input would be appreciated.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mac_hs10*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22538939
> 
> 
> I know this is a Seymour forum but, how does the A4k from elite screen compare to this enlightor 4k from Seymour?



The Elite A4k screen I have isn't finished testing yet. It is a woven polyester PFR like Dazian's Celtic Cloth but not as color accurate. CCC used to be popular in the DIY forums. If you were doing a DIY screen and wanted this type of material, I'd do either CCC or some of the guys are experimenting with spandex over in the DIY forum. While CCC is better than the Elite material, the historical problems with CCC and this type of weave are that CCC's gain is .79 and the cross-pixel light contamination results in a 8% loss in ASNI contrast ratio. This means that the threads light up from within since they are uncoated, and the weave it thick enough that the lit threads contaminate nearby dark areas. In simple terms, this is easiest to see as a halo effect from white on black patterns and is easy to see.


I'll put together measurements and side-by-side screen shots, but you can get a lot better performance up or down the budget.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Steven -


For the retractable XD, I recommend testing a sample first to make sure that it's compatible at your image size(s). Even though we guarantee every screen, it's good to know the result before we make your screen. We can't do a tilted cut on the retractable XD, so moire is a possibility with those, altough exceedingly rare. It's impossible in our fixed frame XD screens, and in any construction of the S-SE 4K material it's also impossible because the 4K doesn't have any pattern.


Regarding texture, the 18' is beyond the general consensus around AVS users of ~11' for critical viewing with the XD although we do have many customers at 8'. For kids or overflow, 8' would be fine. The 4K of course has no minimum seating distance and is used in mastering facilities as close as 6' at a mixing desk.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## zheka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22540813
> 
> 
> The Elite A4k screen I have isn't finished testing yet. It is a woven polyester PFR like Dazian's Celtic Cloth but not as color accurate. CCC used to be popular in the DIY forums. If you were doing a DIY screen and wanted this type of material, I'd do either CCC or some of the guys are experimenting with spandex over in the DIY forum. While CCC is better than the Elite material, the historical problems with CCC and this type of weave are that CCC's gain is .79 and the cross-pixel light contamination results in a 8% loss in ASNI contrast ratio. This means that the threads light up from within since they are uncoated, and the weave it thick enough that the lit threads contaminate nearby dark areas. In simple terms, this is easiest to see as a halo effect from white on black patterns and is easy to see.
> 
> I'll put together measurements and side-by-side screen shots, but you can get a lot better performance up or down the budget.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



interesting.

A4K is supposed to be 1.1 gain.

is it close to what your measurements show, if you do not mind sharing this information?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zheka*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22559454
> 
> 
> interesting.
> 
> A4K is supposed to be 1.1 gain.
> 
> is it close to what your measurements show, if you do not mind sharing this information?



Sure. I'm at Screen Excellence in the UK this week, but if I can stay caught up I should be able to get some progress on that next week.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## tydilee

Greetings All. I'm back in the game after a ten year absence and have ordered a CenterStage XD 110'' wide 2.37 fixed screen. I've seen a few AT screens and for me the XD was the best.

By the time it comes I'll be looking to upgrade my projector from a Sony G70 to a JVC X70 or X75.

Having seen the Sony 95es and JVC X70 on the XD I'm just counting the days to delivery and cinema heaven.

I got to thank Chris and co for making a great product at a great price. It makes the price of my Stewart screen seem like a self inflicted robbery.


----------



## doublewing11

Can panels be made for the Seymour-SE frame using the 4k material? Just wondering.................


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *doublewing11*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22564280
> 
> 
> Can panels be made for the Seymour-SE frame using the 4k material? Just wondering.................



Yes, we have masking panel option for the S-SE Reference frame with the 4K material.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## fight4yu

It is with mixed feeling that I now realized Seymour offered the masking option for the electric screen... When I got my screen like 6 months ago, there was no such option ..







Now, I have to stretch my image whenever I watch 16:9 as I really hate black bars (horizontal or vertical)...Selling a screen is NOT easy, so I wish this comes earlier. In any case, for those that is going to get the electric screen, go scope with masking!!


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22564542
> 
> 
> Yes, we have masking panel option for the S-SE Reference frame with the 4K material.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Great!


I'd assume will magnetically attach?


As soon as your back from the island, I'll give you a tinkle on the blower!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *doublewing11*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22567317
> 
> 
> Great!
> 
> I'd assume will magnetically attach?
> 
> As soon as your back from the island, I'll give you a tinkle on the blower!



Yup, all magnets.


The first time I heard a customer say they wanted to do that to me, my inner eight year couldn't help from laugh at them. I told him I expected at least a glass of wine first, but he didn't understand. Different worlds...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Nice review out on Audioholics on the fixed frame Center Stage XD with the masking panels.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/projectors/projector-screens/seymour-fixed-frame-screen-masking 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## adidino

Chris. What is needed to install the panels on my current 2.35 XD screen if I order them. Will they pop right on?


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22568524
> 
> 
> Yup, all magnets.
> 
> The first time I heard a customer say they wanted to do that to me, my inner eight year couldn't help from laugh at them. I told him I expected at least a glass of wine first, but he didn't understand. Different worlds...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I'm used to the islander lingo................my Mother was British and my cousins all live near Tip Tree/Maldon.


On other note,


I wonder if the XD or S-SE Enlightor can be made in an 1.89 format since I may be using the Sony 1000 for projector. Figuring 140 inches wide............put's it near 72 inches in height. Doable? I need to give you a call once you get back as I already have samples of both materials................pick your brain before I purchase.


----------



## magicj1

I'm just about on the verge of ordering an Seymour electric center stage screen 'once I can decide if I want the optional masking' But I keep coming across 4K talk which has also got my attention. Question, if seated 15ft away from the screen is the 4K material less important?


----------



## Bulldogger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bkeeler10*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800#post_22399065
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if the Seymour Screen Excellence Enlightor 2 screen is made with the same material as the CenterStage XD screen is? Thanks.


No. Enlightor2 is the same fabric that Screen Research uses.


----------



## Billybobjimbob

Does anyone know if Chris is back in the States yet? I emailed him last week, but not had a reply yet so wondering if its because he is in the UK


----------



## magicj1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Billybobjimbob*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22601228
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if Chris is back in the States yet? I emailed him last week, but not had a reply yet so wondering if its because he is in the UK



Billybobjimbob....you having a laugh 'sammy'!











I would send your inquiry again, Chris replied to my email's on Friday & Saturday.


----------



## Billybobjimbob

Just re-sent the mail. I didnt get an error message so assumed it sent


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Bill -


Reply sent. Here with bells on, just trying to get things caught up.










Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Billybobjimbob

Reply received, thankyou Chris







I'll be in touch shortly


Asif


----------



## rx-8

This morning I ordered a 120" wide 16:9 AT Centre Stage screen with non acoustic 2.40 upper and lower masking panels. Due to the American Thanksgiving it doesn't sound like they will be shipped to Canada until December 4th.


I can hardly wait for them to arrive because some of my Seaton speakers were delivered about 30 minutes after I ordered my screen. What was delivered were the 2 F2's, 3 Cat12C's and the speaker stands - a 2 full skids worth. The 4 Cat8C's and stands (surrounds) won't be delivered for another 2 to 3 weeks. If my Epson 6020 projector arrives latter today or tomorrow, I'll be watching movies on a white bed sheet with a 3.2 sound system. LOL


BTW... I spoke to Chris when I ordered the screen and it was a pleasure dealing with him. He was very helpful and offered some suggestions when I told him that I was going hang the screen from the ceiling. Like everyone here has stated previously, he provides great customer service.


----------



## Billybobjimbob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rx-8*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22604443
> 
> 
> Like everyone here has stated previously, he provides great customer service.



I'll agree with that. My screen is a custom size CIA screen and it was made exactly to spec, and shipped over to the UK to me. Excellent product accompanied by excellent service


----------



## sipester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *magicj1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22599966
> 
> 
> I'm just about on the verge of ordering an Seymour electric center stage screen 'once I can decide if I want the optional masking' But I keep coming across 4K talk which has also got my attention. Question, if seated 15ft away from the screen is the 4K material less important?



I don't see anything on the website about the masking option for the electric screens, can some one share a link?


----------



## magicj1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sipester*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22607294
> 
> 
> I don't see anything on the website about the masking option for the electric screens, can some one share a link?




Worth dropping Chris a line for further info.


But on the Seymour site/store/Retractable electric/Code M

masking.PNG 9k .PNG file


----------



## coolgeek

I am planning to use the Centerstage with 1.2 gain.


And the Sony VPL 50ES projector.


How big can I go? My room size is 19 feet wide x 20 feet length by 8 feet tall.


Also, if i went with scope 1.35:1, should i got as big as 180inch?


I guess the question is many fold:


1. Can the Sony projector project to such a large screen and still be watchable (lumens wise) with a 1.2 gain screen. (in a controlled cave)

2. Seating distance... will it be comfortable to wach on such large screen at the distance.


So, basically what is the recommended screen size for my scenario? Should I go scope or wide? If wide, I can probably go as big as 160 inch.


And if scope, do i need an anamorphic lens with the Sony? If so, how much would that set me back?


----------



## deromax

This :

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html 


To determine what seating distance is recommanded for a given screen size (or what size is recommanded for a given distance).


This :

http://www.projectorcentral.com/projection-calculator-pro.cfm 


To determine if light output will be OK with your projector.


Have fun experimenting!


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22617905
> 
> 
> This :
> http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
> 
> To determine what seating distance is recommanded for a given screen size (or what size is recommanded for a given distance).
> 
> This :
> http://www.projectorcentral.com/projection-calculator-pro.cfm
> 
> To determine if light output will be OK with your projector.
> 
> Have fun experimenting!



Ah, that's very helpful... thanks...


Looks like the maximum size I can go is about 150 inch diagonal. I was thinking of 180 diagonal...


----------



## TedO

Coolgeek,


I just ran my HW50 on a 150” wide (163” diagonal ) XD screen in fully light controlled room and the picture was great. Even with the light loss in 3D the picture was very good.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TedO*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22622273
> 
> 
> Coolgeek,
> 
> I just ran my HW50 on a 150” wide (163” diagonal ) XD screen in fully light controlled room and the picture was great. Even with the light loss in 3D the picture was very good.



Wonderful... now, do you think I can possibly squeeze a little bigger screen on it? Say 160 or 180? Or, do you think 150 is already at the edge of losing too much light?


----------



## coolgeek

Oh, wait, you just said 163 diagonal, i thought you said 150 diagonal... well, u think it can even go to 180 diagonal? Are you running it in scope or wide?


----------



## mv038856

Hi,


I was wondering what the Center Stage XD's effect on polarization is.


It is obvious that it does not maintain polarization, as it is not a silver screen. But compared to a non-woven screen, does the XD diffuse polarization more?


Any real live experience or Chris' official take on polarization on the XD are welcome!


Thanks!


Markus


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mv038856*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22623615
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering what the Center Stage XD's effect on polarization is.
> 
> It is obvious that it does not maintain polarization, as it is not a silver screen. But compared to a non-woven screen, does the XD diffuse polarization more?
> 
> Any real live experience or Chris' official take on polarization on the XD are welcome!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Markus



Correct that it does not maintain polarization, as only silver screens do. The XD diffuses like any other Lambertian surface, or near-unity white screen. The weave doesn't affect the polarization response because once the lights hits the white pvc, it uniformly scatters back.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## TedO

Coolgeek,


I think it would. Much will depend on the room and throw distance. Also this was a brand new bulb. We were using zoom to fill the screen so there was a loss of light due to the over scan.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TedO*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22626689
> 
> 
> Coolgeek,
> 
> I think it would. Much will depend on the room and throw distance. Also this was a brand new bulb. We were using zoom to fill the screen so there was a loss of light due to the over scan.



Can you explain what you mean by using zoom. Are you saying that 1 to 1 distance is the brightest mode or placing the projector nearest to the screen possible the brightest mode? As you can see, I am a very, very new, newbie on this.


Let's say I want to project on a 180 inch diagonal screen (scope), what distance would give me the brightest? The sony indicates that it's 1/1.6 ratio.. not sure what all that means or how to calculate the distances.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22627131
> 
> 
> Play around with the Projector Central Calculator and it will show you all you need to know. It gives you light output estimates for any combination of zoom and screen size your projector is capable of.
> 
> Maybe not 100% accurate, and I think they use the projector's maximum light output mode, but it is easy to compare light output from one setup relative to another.
> 
> ...or if you just want the fish and not the instruction, for any given screen size a projector will be brightest at the short end of it's zoom range (closest to the screen).



I did play around with it and it was pretty informative. however, I think they have a set 'zoom' on the projector which you can't alter... If I go by them, then the max size I could get is 150.


----------



## deromax

Wide angle zoom setting and close distance will provide the most light intensity on the screen.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22629003
> 
> 
> Wide angle zoom setting and close distance will provide the most light intensity on the screen.



Ok, got it.. thanks


----------



## Jindrak

Hey Chris, how much would it be for a 150" wide, curved screen with AT material with a scope of 2.40?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jindrak*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22667804
> 
> 
> Hey Chris, how much would it be for a 150" wide, curved screen with AT material with a scope of 2.40?



The price would be the same as a C150XS on the site, as we'd not charge any extra for the 2.4 ratio (or 2.35 if that's your slice of cake).


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Jindrak

Oooh, I'm liking that price. That's so tempting....


----------



## KenLand

Just feel the need to chime in and say how happy I am with my Seymour AT electric screen and SERVICE.


I had a problem with my screen and Chris took care of it in a more than fair and professional manner!


My family and I enjoy this screen at least once a week (for years now) and I enjoy knowing it came from a great guy I can trust!


Thanks Chris!

Ken Land


----------



## cdika17




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KenLand*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1800_100#post_22701502
> 
> 
> Just feel the need to chime in and say how happy I am with my Seymour AT electric screen and SERVICE.
> 
> I had a problem with my screen and Chris took care of it in a more than fair and professional manner!
> 
> My family and I enjoy this screen at least once a week (for years now) and I enjoy knowing it came from a great guy I can trust!
> 
> Thanks Chris!
> 
> Ken Land


I don't believe you, this could be rectified with pictures


----------



## KenLand

Ok Fetch. (Hey enjoyed your build thread - would love to hear those eD12's)


UP:

 


Down:

 


Have it on a maintained wall switch and love not having to find the remote!


----------



## 235

I thought I read this somewhere but can't find it now.....what is the minimum distance that should be kept between a center stage material and the LCR's?


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *235*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22707141
> 
> 
> I thought I read this somewhere but can't find it now.....what is the minimum distance that should be kept between a center stage material and the LCR's?



I'm using Triad Platinum LCR's and I'm only a couple of inches from the material. I think the rules applies to front ported speakers and subs which requires some distance from the screen.


----------



## zheka

I do not think there is any problem with front ported speakers placed close to the centerstage xd screen.

It is microperf screens that have minimum distance reqs, not woven ones like CS XD.


----------



## zheka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22540813
> 
> 
> The Elite A4k screen I have isn't finished testing yet. It is a woven polyester PFR like Dazian's Celtic Cloth but not as color accurate. CCC used to be popular in the DIY forums. If you were doing a DIY screen and wanted this type of material, I'd do either CCC or some of the guys are experimenting with spandex over in the DIY forum. While CCC is better than the Elite material, the historical problems with CCC and this type of weave are that CCC's gain is .79 and the cross-pixel light contamination results in a 8% loss in ASNI contrast ratio. This means that the threads light up from within since they are uncoated, and the weave it thick enough that the lit threads contaminate nearby dark areas. In simple terms, this is easiest to see as a halo effect from white on black patterns and is easy to see.
> 
> I'll put together measurements and side-by-side screen shots, but you can get a lot better performance up or down the budget.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Chris,


Did you have a chance to finish the A4K testing?


Could you explain how the cross-pixel light contamination is addressed in Centerstage XD? Is it a (serious) problem in spandex screens?


Thank you


----------



## landshark1

Anyone has experience with their new non-AT screen material? I'm looking for a non-AT cinemascope screen, and is thinking between the new SeymourAV non-AT screen or the Carada?


----------



## zheka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22710915
> 
> 
> Obviously I'm not Chris, but I have compared my Spandex screen directly to a sample of Centerstage XD and can probably answer your question.
> 
> Other than being noticably brighter one other benefit of the XD material that quite surprised me was how much sharper image detail appeared to be.
> 
> I have tried spandex in every configuration possible (Silver over white, white over silver, white over white) and in every situation the spandex gives a slight halo effect around each pixel. Essentially when hit by a beam of light, the spandex "glows" in a larger area than that hit directly. The XD in comparison maintains greater localized contrast.
> 
> In my particular situation a little fuzziness around the edges is a good thing because I have a viewing angle greater than 50 degrees with a 720p projector. The spandex makes visible pixel structure bearable. Also I sit quite close to the screen (about 9 feet) which may allow the XD weave to be seen at times.
> 
> In my mind the Centerstage material is well worth the price difference if it works in your particular install.
> 
> Spandex is cheap and XD samples are free. I encourage you to try for yourself.



David,


Thank you for sharing your experience. I have settled with CS XD and am happy with the results. I tried spandex, though my tests were not nearly as extensive as yours. I only used a single layer of silver moleskin.


The main reason I ruled spandex out is dimness. I simply could not get the picture bright enough and still maintain decent quality. But I also noticed that the picture is a little bit washed out , not as sharp compared to what I was used to with Visual Apex white screen. At the time I tested it, the screen was still wall mounted and there was 1/2 inch gap between the spandex and the wall. Even though the wall is painted dark brown, there was some reflection light thrown back on the screen. So this is what I attributed the wash out effect to. But after reading your and Chris' posts about the cross-pixel light contamination, i think that is the real reason. And doing multiple layers would probably make the effect more pronounced.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zheka*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22708787
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Did you have a chance to finish the A4K testing?
> 
> Could you explain how the cross-pixel light contamination is addressed in Centerstage XD? Is it a (serious) problem in spandex screens?
> 
> Thank you



No, sorry. Been buried but should see daylight next week.


----------



## GRBoomer

Have my curved 120" wide 2.37:1 screen up. Looks great. I only barely notice the pattern in the material at a seating distance of 10-11'. I would say you have to be looking for it, and it is only for extended pure white scenes. Anybody on the fence because of this? Do not worry about it. It looks fine. Any guest to the theater would never notice.

_Way less noticeable, than say the blue dots at the movie theater that tell the projectionist to change reels. No I have ruined it for you all haven't I?_


----------



## blipszyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GRBoomer*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22716068
> 
> _Way less noticeable, than say the blue dots at the movie theater that tell the projectionist to change reels. No I have ruined it for you all haven't I?_


Actually, Tyler Durden from Fight Club clued me onto those...thank goodness for digital projection because they used to drive me nuts!


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blipszyc*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22717883
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GRBoomer*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1860#post_22716068
> 
> _Way less noticeable, than say the blue dots at the movie theater that tell the projectionist to change reels. No I have ruined it for you all haven't I?_
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Tyler Durden from Fight Club clued me onto those...thank goodness for digital projection because they used to drive me nuts!
Click to expand...


I actually learned about those on an episode of Columbo where the timing of the reel change cues was the reason the killer's alibi did not hold up.


----------



## MikeyD360

Hi guys, does anyone know where I can track down a SeymourAV screen in Australia?


I checked with the fantastic guys at AV Science who recently took care of me with my anamorphic lens, but O/S shipping is not available for screens.


I was looking at an SMX, but value:$ ratio of seymour (sounds much more professional than "See-More") makes it a much better proposition for my situation.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeyD360*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22723742
> 
> 
> Hi guys, does anyone know where I can track down a SeymourAV screen in Australia?
> 
> I checked with the fantastic guys at AV Science who recently took care of me with my anamorphic lens, but O/S shipping is not available for screens.
> 
> I was looking at an SMX, but value:$ ratio of seymour (sounds much more professional than "See-More") makes it a much better proposition for my situation.



We ship to Oz no problem. It's a bit costly with putting a car-length box into an aluminum tube with wings, and the GST, but I'd expect that you all are familiar with import costs by now. I'll get to any RFQs as I'm able.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22728100
> 
> 
> We ship to Oz no problem. It's a bit costly with putting a car-length box into an aluminum tube with wings, and the GST, but I'd expect that you all are familiar with import costs by now. I'll get to any RFQs as I'm able.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Excellent. You should have an email from me - I look forward to hearing from you.

Based on the pricing on your website, even with shipping added (and GST... thanks John Howard) it should still be a reasonable bit cheaper than getting something of similar quality locally.

Unfortunately I only seem to be able to get Stewart/SMX or generic flat screen rubbish everywhere I have looked here...


----------



## Skylinestar

Can an AT screen drop in front of a plasma tv? Will the plasma screen reflect back the light to the viewer?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22752397
> 
> 
> Can an AT screen drop in front of a plasma tv? Will the plasma screen reflect back the light to the viewer?



Yes, it can drop in front of a flat panel no problem. The electric screens have a secondary black backing layer as standard. If you still get a sparkle, a little angling of the flat panel can fix it, but we have a lot of screens in these applications without notable issues.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## TedO

Chris,


I am thinking of going with a curved screen, either a C160 or C170. I have a Sony HW50 projector and a UH480 A lens. Where can I find information on mounting a curved screen, specifically what the mounting wall opening should be sized to.


----------



## edfowler

TedO, you can check out my curved screen build thread in DIY Constant Height forum. Btw, I used a $2 eyelet punching tool from Menards and o rings to tighten the screen and remove the wrinkles.


----------



## blipszyc

Hey Chris - if you're monitoring this thread - how long of a backorder is the Centerstage material? I just noticed today that it's listed as Out of Stock on the website.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blipszyc*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22815990
> 
> 
> Hey Chris - if you're monitoring this thread - how long of a backorder is the Centerstage material? I just noticed today that it's listed as Out of Stock on the website.



We're at about two weeks although I was didn't get an expected update on it this week like I planned. I'm trying to get it available asap. In the meanwhile, we're queuing up orders so they can ship out the same day the material gets finished.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TedO*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22790372
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> I am thinking of going with a curved screen, either a C160 or C170. I have a Sony HW50 projector and a UH480 A lens. Where can I find information on mounting a curved screen, specifically what the mounting wall opening should be sized to.



Email me and I'll send you a drawing for whichever screen you're interested in. The short answer on the curved screens is they have an 8' bar across the top center, and two L-brackets to pin the bottom corners 116-7/8" apart.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

My home theater project should be wrapping up over the next few weeks or months depending on how much time I have. I'm building a DIY 150 inch screen. I just ordered my Seymour Center XD screen material. I'm really pleased with the availability of 1.2 gain acoustic screen. Price was good, Chris Seymour is very pleasant to work with.


I'm excited to receive and hang.


----------



## dlaloum

Hi Folks,


looking for a bit of assistance ...


I purchased my CenterStage XD screen three years ago - but it sat pending renovations until last week...


Now it is up (yay!)


It has the 4 wire control box with the plug in IR sensor - and It works fine lowering or raising it via the control box hot wire points.


Now for my "issues"


1) I cannot find a definition for it in the Harmony database, and as I did not purchase one of the IT remotes I have nothing to learn the codes from... (argh) - is there any way around this, or do I bite the bullet and order a remote, and wait for it to turn up so I can "learn" the codes?

2) Lower limit setting - how do I set the lower limit for screen drop - I need it to stop several inches up from where it defaults to (it came with a little plastic hex screw driver in the box, but no instructions....- perhaps this is intended for adjusting things?)


thanks


David


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dlaloum*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22831188
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> 
> looking for a bit of assistance ...
> 
> 
> I purchased my CenterStage XD screen three years ago - but it sat pending renovations until last week...
> 
> 
> Now it is up (yay!)
> 
> 
> It has the 4 wire control box with the plug in IR sensor - and It works fine lowering or raising it via the control box hot wire points.
> 
> 
> Now for my "issues"
> 
> 
> 1) I cannot find a definition for it in the Harmony database, and as I did not purchase one of the IT remotes I have nothing to learn the codes from... (argh) - is there any way around this, or do I bite the bullet and order a remote, and wait for it to turn up so I can "learn" the codes?
> 
> 2) Lower limit setting - how do I set the lower limit for screen drop - I need it to stop several inches up from where it defaults to (it came with a little plastic hex screw driver in the box, but no instructions....- perhaps this is intended for adjusting things?)
> 
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> David



1) I think the codes are located in the appliance section, which on my 1000 was a picture of a refrigerator. Then either do a search for Seymour AV - since the codes were submitted to them to add to the database as such - or under Electronic Solutions, ESI, etc. Worst case is you can buy the IR remote and send it back after you've taught the Harmony the way it should work.


2) The lower limits are controlled by a turn pot on the motor head. There are two pots and you want to attack the one that has its big arrow in the direction the roller would turn to lower the screen. On that pot, there are + and -. Adjust it accordingly with the tool. Since you're using a motor control box, it doesn't keep power to the motor so you'll need to bump the motor up a few inches and try the new setting in order to get it dialed in like you want. You likely won't be able to lower it much at all since you'll run out of tension cable on the roller, but can shorten it however much you want. You'll also likely need to tweak the tab tensioning to get everything perfect.


Email me if you have any follow up questions or needs. I'll check off your current email in my box as done...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffreyJonesBSME*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22827721
> 
> 
> My home theater project should be wrapping up over the next few weeks or months depending on how much time I have. I'm building a DIY 150 inch screen. I just ordered my Seymour Center XD screen material. I'm really pleased with the availability of 1.2 gain acoustic screen. Price was good, Chris Seymour is very pleasant to work with.
> 
> 
> I'm excited to receive and hang.




Be careful and realistic with your brightness expectations with the Center Stage XD with a screen size of 150"!


The Seymour XD screen is a very nice screen and performs great especially for the price. Also, Chris without a doubt provides the BEST customer service around!


The XD screen is advertised as a 1.2 gain and seems to have a higher gain of any of the woven acoustically transparent screens. But, in real world measurement the screen has been found to be like a unity (1.0) gain or a bit less so keep that in mind with a screen as large as 150"... Just don't expect miracles in the brightness department!


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22846024
> 
> 
> Be careful and realistic with your brightness expectations with the Center Stage XD with a screen size of 150"!
> 
> 
> The Seymour XD screen is a very nice screen and performs great especially for the price. Also, Chris without a doubt provides the BEST customer service around!
> 
> 
> The XD screen is advertised as a 1.2 gain and seems to have a higher gain of any of the woven acoustically transparent screens. But, in real world measurement the screen has been found to be like a unity (1.0) gain or a bit less so keep that in mind with a screen as large as 150"... Just don't expect miracles in the brightness department!



I'm going with an Epson 6020 projector which is one of the more brighter projectors out there for home theater, in my price range. I received a few samples of screen materials and I liked this one the best. It had a "coating" on it unlike the others that made me think it would be more "wipable" if something go on it.


I've never had a screen this big, so I hope I'm happy with the results.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## MikeyD360

According to UPS my 140" XD curved screen touched down in AUS today, so I will be looking forward to receiving it soon. I was a bit worried as it spent 3 days showing an exception for "airline error" during which time I imagined my screen half buried in sand at the scene of a plane crash, not unlike the opening scenes of "Lost" back in the day, or being used by Tom Hanks as some kind of raft or shelter a'la "Cast Away".


----------



## Unacceptable




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1880_40#post_22820157
> 
> 
> We're at about two weeks although I was didn't get an expected update on it this week like I planned. I'm trying to get it available asap. In the meanwhile, we're queuing up orders so they can ship out the same day the material gets finished.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Any update on availability, Chris? Pardon the impatience while the Super Bowl bears down on me.


----------



## llj

I'm looking for a retractable non-AT screen.


Noticed mention of some new "glacier white" non AT material on the Seymour website. However

it only seems to be available for the fixed panels.


Any chance Seymour will make available a non AT material for their retractable screens?


Cheers,

llj


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Unacceptable*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22866131
> 
> 
> Any update on availability, Chris? Pardon the impatience while the Super Bowl bears down on me.



It's due to come in today or tomorrow. Assuming it passes final tests (acoustic, colorimeter) - it always has - we'll be able to ship out DIY orders the same day.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *llj*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22866308
> 
> 
> I'm looking for a retractable non-AT screen.
> 
> 
> Noticed mention of some new "glacier white" non AT material on the Seymour website. However
> 
> it only seems to be available for the fixed panels.
> 
> 
> Any chance Seymour will make available a non AT material for their retractable screens?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> llj



Hi llj -


The Glacier White 1.3 non-AT will only be available in our fixed frames screens. Our retractables are an unusual creature compared to other designs, and the stitched perimeter of actual fabric velvet borders and hiding the tab tension cables behind the borders works great for the AT screens but even though the Glacier White is a reinforced material, it does not play well with solid screens. We made one for Totem Acoustics and I wasn't happy with the results. The solid screens would instead need the traditional method of painting black(ish) borders and big hourglass shapes. I don't forsee doing this here, since there wouldn't be enough differences in our resulting product.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeyD360*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22856441
> 
> 
> According to UPS my 140" XD curved screen touched down in AUS today, so I will be looking forward to receiving it soon. I was a bit worried as it spent 3 days showing an exception for "airline error" during which time I imagined my screen half buried in sand at the scene of a plane crash, not unlike the opening scenes of "Lost" back in the day, or being used by Tom Hanks as some kind of raft or shelter a'la "Cast Away".



Please update on the results, because I confess for the past couple days these images are what have been in my mind for your screen. It'd be a terrible raft...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## tbraden32

Chris what is current time frame to receive CenterStage material if ordered?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbraden32*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22869917
> 
> 
> Chris what is current time frame to receive CenterStage material if ordered?



Zero to two days to ship from Iowa, which to Ohio would be another couple days.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22867851
> 
> 
> Please update on the results, because I confess for the past couple days these images are what have been in my mind for your screen. It'd be a terrible raft...
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



It's has touched down in South Aus and is now being processed by UPS. I'm hoping to see it either today (Friday) or Tuesday. Monday is a holiday for us lazy Aussie bludgers. Can't wait! Perhaps the excitement may be contributing to the fact that I'm awake at 4:40am :-/


----------



## MikeyD360

Scrap that - its in my hot little hands now!

At first I only got the package with the millibel AT panels for 1.78 content, so after a call to UPS, they came back with the BIG one.

And I do mean BIG - the box was over 4m long!!!!

It was packed superbly and there was zero damage (of course).

It was my first glimpse of the XD material and it looks superb. The colour is great (better than my beige roller blind) and the weave is very fine and definitely shouldn't be noticeable at the seating distances I am planning.

I would be a mug to pay the prices that competing brands are asking for essentially the same product!

The whole thing has been a magnificent experience so far (I.e. dealing with Chris & shipping internationally).

The only problem - at 4m long, the box is too big to move out of the hallway in our current house, so it's created a commando course of steps and jumps to get in and around the house for the next 3 weeks until we start moving









I also like that the masking panels come with spare seating clips in case of breakage, which can double as cool guitar picks in the meantime










I think the 1200 (claimed) lumens of the X95 should be able to light it up nicely. Cue sleepless nights in anticipation until this is mounted!


----------



## Skylinestar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeyD360*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22876432
> 
> 
> Scrap that - its in my hot little hands now!
> 
> At first I only got the package with the millibel AT panels for 1.78 content, so after a call to UPS, they came back with the BIG one.
> 
> And I do mean BIG - the box was over 4m long!!!!
> 
> It was packed superbly and there was zero damage (of course).
> 
> It was my first glimpse of the XD material and it looks superb. The colour is great (better than my beige roller blind) and the weave is very fine and definitely shouldn't be noticeable at the seating distances I am planning.
> 
> I would be a mug to pay the prices that competing brands are asking for essentially the same product!
> 
> The whole thing has been a magnificent experience so far (I.e. dealing with Chris & shipping internationally).
> 
> The only problem - at 4m long, the box is too big to move out of the hallway in our current house, so it's created a commando course of steps and jumps to get in and around the house for the next 3 weeks until we start moving
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also like that the masking panels come with spare seating clips in case of breakage, which can double as cool guitar picks in the meantime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the 1200 (claimed) lumens of the X95 should be able to light it up nicely. Cue sleepless nights in anticipation until this is mounted!


Glad that it turns out fine.

Could you please take some photos of the packaging?


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22877323
> 
> 
> Glad that it turns out fine.
> 
> Could you please take some photos of the packaging?



Too late, I've stripped most of it already.

Imagine a 4m long box, about 50cm wide, and 25 or so high.  

It's reinforced to support the length


Once you open it, inside there is another long box which has the screen frame in it (yet to open), a box with the rubber bands that hold the screen to the frame (and some other cool little goodies). The L brackets to join the frame, and a heavy duty tube with the rolled screen material in it. The hanger and hardware to wallmount the frame. All of this is fixed in position so it doesn't bounce around in transit. It weighs about 42kg and the longer boxes have break points in them to reduce the size for disposal.


I particularly like the SeymourAV sticker; 'Made in USA by Robots'.


----------



## tjbeaum

Chris:


I am looking to get a center stage screen. I am in the final stages of building now and want to know if i use a sony vpl95es with about a 15' throw and a 110" screen will the gain be too much for the sony? I asked around for a elitor 4k but cant seem to find anyone to give me pricing and dont know if i really need the 4k screen for a 95es. the seating will start 10' back and i think i should be fine with the center stage material.


Thoughts?


Thanks


----------



## smokarz

Hi Chris,


Can I request a sample of XD CenterStage fabric?


Thanks,


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

I got a FedEx shipping confirmation. My Seymour XD screen material should be here tomorrow. Unfortunately, I won't be ready to hang for a few weeks later.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tjbeaum*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22881732
> 
> 
> Chris:
> 
> 
> I am looking to get a center stage screen. I am in the final stages of building now and want to know if i use a sony vpl95es with about a 15' throw and a 110" screen will the gain be too much for the sony? I asked around for a elitor 4k but cant seem to find anyone to give me pricing and dont know if i really need the 4k screen for a 95es. the seating will start 10' back and i think i should be fine with the center stage material.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Hi -


I think I answered your questions over the phone, but if not: For that relatively smaller screen size and fairly close seating distance, the advantages of the Enlightor-4K would come into play. I don't think you'd need the extra gain of the XD and the 4K would give you better black levels and shadow details at this size. Let me know if you need samples or have questions.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smokarz*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1890#post_22890315
> 
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> 
> Can I request a sample of XD CenterStage fabric?
> 
> 
> Thanks,



I just need your mailing address for a free letter size, or if you need the 24x24 sample it ships in a tube. Email address below or feel free to PM.


Cheers,

[email protected]


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

Chris,


I had a great idea.


In my last theater, I had a hard time stopping people from wanting to touch my screen.

I'm keeping my sample you sent and when someone asks to touch the screen, I'll whip out my sample and say "If you have to feel it...touch this instead"


----------



## smokarz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffreyJonesBSME*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22896595
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> I had a great idea.
> 
> 
> In my last theater, I had a hard time stopping people from wanting to touch my screen.
> 
> I'm keeping my sample you sent and when someone asks to touch the screen, I'll whip out my sample and say "If you have to feel it...touch this instead"





That's a great idea. Wish I could say the same thing to a bunch of under 10yr old kids.


----------



## Colin Goddard

Hi all,


I will soon be a repeat customer for Seymour XD Centerstage Screen. I originally bought this diy material from Chris a few years back for my first projector an Epson 8100, and built my own screen. I remember my wife saying " I better see a big improvement with pq. quality with this screen".... 2 weeks later the wife went out and bought a full size popcorn maker along with other decor for our ht room...







Fast forward to today, just bought an Epson 5020 and will go with a larger XD screen. Chris was great to deal with. The image from my 5020 is just great on the 110 diagonal XD material IMO But the 5020 can project a larger image at the same distance as the 8100.. Be in contact with you soon Chris


----------



## blastermaster

Just ordered mine for my DIY curved screen. Can't wait!


@Colin. It's funny about the wife thing, because my wife likes to downplay the home theater and act all ho hum about it. But as soon as new guests come over and have a tour of the house that's the first place she takes them!


----------



## ADDUpstate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1900_100#post_22901655
> 
> 
> Just ordered mine for my DIY curved screen. Can't wait!
> 
> 
> @Colin. It's funny about the wife thing, because my wife likes to downplay the home theater and act all ho hum about it. But as soon as new guests come over and have a tour of the house that's the first place she takes them!



I think that is page 1 in the "wife manual". Mine too.


----------



## lance7

Is it important to put some sort of sound dampening with the speakers behind a Center Stage Screen? Should I use Auralex? Is there a less expensive alternative? Would Roxul insulation work? Just wondering what is the way to set it up correctly. The screen is about 2.5' off the wall and the speakers are going to be behind them and I am curious what everyone is doing that owns these screens.

Thanks!


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

My screen came yesterday!


It's still in the tube and will stay there for about 3 weeks, until I can get my theater's screen wall prepared and finished.


This wait is killing me.


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lance7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22905778
> 
> 
> Is it important to put some sort of sound dampening with the speakers behind a Center Stage Screen? Should I use Auralex? Is there a less expensive alternative? Would Roxul insulation work? Just wondering what is the way to set it up correctly. The screen is about 2.5' off the wall and the speakers are going to be behind them and I am curious what everyone is doing that owns these screens.
> 
> Thanks!



I am in process of finishing my screen wall in my theater. I decided to put a plywood barrier about 1.5 inches behind the screen surface to act as "fall into" protection. Chris told me I should paint the bare wood flat black before I install my screen. He didn't say anything about sound barriers, but I'd say this is up to you. I've been considering the same thing, but I'm waiting to do that until I get the screen up and speakers working so I can see how much noise I get behind my screen.


It all really depends on your unique theater configuration. As you can see in my picture, behind my screen wall is a hallway. I expect to get lots of sound there and this is why I'm considering using a sound barrier.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22901655
> 
> 
> Just ordered mine for my DIY curved screen. Can't wait!
> 
> 
> @Colin. It's funny about the wife thing, because my wife likes to downplay the home theater and act all ho hum about it. But as soon as new guests come over and have a tour of the house that's the first place she takes them!



I think it's in their chapter titled "Don't Encourage Him." I can sometimes hear that Marge Simpson sound of worry in the background, but all in all it's a great hobby that the whole family enjoys. After it's done, I've never heard of family disharmony as a result, unlike some strictly 2-channel excesses.


I did get a call one time from a customer on a related note. He said he'd spoken to me about a year earlier and wanted a fully decked out fixed frame screen with masking panels. His wife told him it was her or the screen. He was calling to inform me that she's gone and it was time to order the screen. A wise decision, sir...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lance7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22905778
> 
> 
> Is it important to put some sort of sound dampening with the speakers behind a Center Stage Screen? Should I use Auralex? Is there a less expensive alternative? Would Roxul insulation work? Just wondering what is the way to set it up correctly. The screen is about 2.5' off the wall and the speakers are going to be behind them and I am curious what everyone is doing that owns these screens.
> 
> Thanks!



If you were using a perforated vinyl screen, they have significant backwave reflections which is why per the THX guidelines the entire baffle wall is always to be covered in heavy absorption. The XD screen is much more acoustically transparent and the baffle wall absorption is more optional. I encourage nice thick absorption of at least 4" when the room and/or speakers are lively enough to handle it or designed for it. However, there is no appreciable backwave reflection off a woven screen provided the openness is adequate (I've seen some that are closed up way too much with 7-8dB suckouts - boo). Some rooms therefore don't need it. I don't have any backwall absorption because the fronts are 6' spaced from the wall. I did have to treat first reflection points and axis where slap or flutter echo can develop (think 90 degree sides and directly behind) with combinations of absorption and diffusion.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lance7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22905778
> 
> 
> Is it important to put some sort of sound dampening with the speakers behind a Center Stage Screen? Should I use Auralex? Is there a less expensive alternative? Would Roxul insulation work? Just wondering what is the way to set it up correctly. The screen is about 2.5' off the wall and the speakers are going to be behind them and I am curious what everyone is doing that owns these screens.
> 
> Thanks!



I used the opportunity that the screen provided to hide a lot of the sound dampening in my room behind the screen.











I have 9 acoustic panels behind the screen, but all my guests see is this:


----------



## blastermaster

WTF. Ok, clearly I need to make some changes behind my screen. I just have wall, speakers, screen. Thought it was going to be that simple. I have mostly up to this point been a videophile and have only recently begun to upgrade the sound portion of my home theater. If I can make it better by adding acoustic panels, I will. I'll post pics of my setup and hope for feedback. I think I have it pretty open, but pics will tell if that's true or not. Also, if I'm using a curved screen and the speaker drivers are supposed to be parallel with the screen, should I be slightly toeing in the L/R speakers, since they are slightly angled due to the curve of the screen, or is that way too anal retentive? Cheers.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22908677
> 
> 
> WTF. Ok, clearly I need to make some changes behind my screen. I just have wall, speakers, screen. Thought it was going to be that simple. I have mostly up to this point been a videophile and have only recently begun to upgrade the sound portion of my home theater. If I can make it better by adding acoustic panels, I will. I'll post pics of my setup and hope for feedback. I think I have it pretty open, but pics will tell if that's true or not. Also, if I'm using a curved screen and the speaker drivers are supposed to be parallel with the screen, should I be slightly toeing in the L/R speakers, since they are slightly angled due to the curve of the screen, or is that way too anal retentive? Cheers.



The speaker's angle relative to the screen doesn't matter with the XD, so the general rule still holds true: Do what sounds best and don't worry about the screen.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## deromax

I think the best way to considere the XD screen on the acoustical aspect is like the screen is not there. All considerations of speakers distance, angle, reflexion, attenuation, FR irregularities are moot. Soundwise, it's not there!


About in-room sound absorption, I think that damping panels will be way more useful in the room than behind the screen. The sides and back walls need some.


----------



## blastermaster

Dero,


Thanks for the advice. I'm taking down my old screen to install the XD material anyway, so I'm gonna throw up some padding behind the speakers and a bass trap on the side wall. I'm going to wrap it in leftover black material I have so that saves me from having to paint the back wall also. As far as the rest of the room is concerned, one half of the wall leads into another room, but I've closed it off with very thick velvet curtains, so that should help a bit. Also, my drop ceiling has fiberglass panels, which also should help. I tried the clap test and...nothing. Still, there's one wall that can definitely benefit from damping, but it has my plaque mounted movie posters. I'd be sad to see those go.


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22915382
> 
> 
> Dero,
> 
> 
> Thanks for the advice. I'm taking down my old screen to install the XD material anyway, so I'm gonna throw up some padding behind the speakers and a bass trap on the side wall. I'm going to wrap it in leftover black material I have so that saves me from having to paint the back wall also. As far as the rest of the room is concerned, one half of the wall leads into another room, but I've closed it off with very thick velvet curtains, so that should help a bit. Also, my drop ceiling has fiberglass panels, which also should help. I tried the clap test and...nothing. Still, there's one wall that can definitely benefit from damping, but it has my plaque mounted movie posters. I'd be sad to see those go.


It may be ok to leave one wall undamped. You do not want to deaden the room too much. I just treated the front wall (behind the screen) the back wall and the ceiling. I left the side walls alone. I am very happy with the results.


----------



## dropzone7

I was just checking in on the SeymourAV site, dreaming as usual about finally having a screen when I discovered their new "Economy" fixed frame product. I decided a while back to go with the Centerstage material but figured I would do DIY to save money. With this new option it makes buying the whole package from Seymour more appealing and frankly, better for my budget or lack thereof. One thing I'm not clear on is if the frame is still made of aluminum or if it's something else. Having the rubber band and post system would really be nice and I wouldn't mind the split in the top and bottom pieces at all. My room is so dark it would probably never be seen. As luch would have it, it's available up to the exact size I was looking for (130" wide 2.35). I'm also wondering if there is some sort of cross member or support bar in the middle of the frame.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22936303
> 
> 
> I was just checking in on the SeymourAV site, dreaming as usual about finally having a screen when I discovered their new "Economy" fixed frame product. I decided a while back to go with the Centerstage material but figured I would do DIY to save money. With this new option it makes buying the whole package from Seymour more appealing and frankly, better for my budget or lack thereof. One thing I'm not clear on is if the frame is still made of aluminum or if it's something else. Having the rubber band and post system would really be nice and I wouldn't mind the split in the top and bottom pieces at all. My room is so dark it would probably never be seen. As luch would have it, it's available up to the exact size I was looking for (130" wide 2.35). I'm also wondering if there is some sort of cross member or support bar in the middle of the frame.



It's the same extruded aluminum that we've always used on our Premier frames for up to a 210" wide span. Just a smaller profile, powder coated and split for the savings. The joining bars are 12" of 7ga steel, so there is no sag at the split points. It therefore doesn't need vertical supports, as we also limit the image width to 130". We supply two 18" wide mounting cleats, which when you hang it around the 1/6 and 5/6 image widths use the screen's center of gravity as a friend.


As with any of our screens, I'll take it back if you don't like it. Hopefully, the new economy frame is like the fixed frame we've been making for the past few years (now called Premier so you can tell them apart), and will keep a perfect record of no returns.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## dropzone7

Wow, no center support bar needed is even better! I wasn't looking forward to having that obstructing the nice open space or in my case, the lack of space. I really have a unique situation to work around and this sounds like the best solution yet. I just need to get a baffle wall built. I have some linacoustic now but I'm using in wall speakers which won't be built into the wall, they will be built into the false wall.


----------



## smokarz

Chris,


Do you have pricing availability for thse new Economy screens?


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smokarz*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22940635
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Do you have pricing availability for thse new Economy screens?



It's on the website under the "store" tab. Then just scroll down to the fixed frame section and the economy version pricing of the screen is listed in the far right column.


----------



## smokarz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22940653
> 
> 
> It's on the website under the "store" tab. Then just scroll down to the fixed frame section and the economy version pricing of the screen is listed in the far right column.



Thanks, I'll check them out.


----------



## Yzfbossman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22540813
> 
> 
> The Elite A4k screen I have isn't finished testing yet. It is a woven polyester PFR like Dazian's Celtic Cloth but not as color accurate. CCC used to be popular in the DIY forums. If you were doing a DIY screen and wanted this type of material, I'd do either CCC or some of the guys are experimenting with spandex over in the DIY forum. While CCC is better than the Elite material, the historical problems with CCC and this type of weave are that CCC's gain is .79 and the cross-pixel light contamination results in a 8% loss in ASNI contrast ratio. This means that the threads light up from within since they are uncoated, and the weave it thick enough that the lit threads contaminate nearby dark areas. In simple terms, this is easiest to see as a halo effect from white on black patterns and is easy to see.
> 
> 
> I'll put together measurements and side-by-side screen shots, but you can get a lot better performance up or down the budget.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1830#post_22562265
> 
> 
> Sure. I'm at Screen Excellence in the UK this week, but if I can stay caught up I should be able to get some progress on that next week.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Hi Chris, I would enjoy hearing about your testing if you were able to get it done.


Thanks!


----------



## ScottJ

I'm looking at getting a retractable screen with the motorized constant-width masking panel (mentioned at the bottom of this page ). Chris from Seymour has been very patient and helpful with all my questions, but I would like to hear from someone who has a screen like this installed. Anyone here?


----------



## yosh7

Anyone here have the new GLACIER WHITE 1.3? I will not need an AT screen and am interested in this slightly less expensive option. Is it also a "4K" rated screen? As durable as the the other screen?


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yosh7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22954164
> 
> 
> Anyone here have the new GLACIER WHITE 1.3? I will not need an AT screen and am interested in this slightly less expensive option. Is it also a "4K" rated screen? As durable as the the other screen?



The Glacier White screen can resolve 4K.


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22954808
> 
> 
> The Glacier White screen can resolve 4K.



I saw my first screen with moire today, and it made me think of the Seymours and how the fabric is angled to prevent this.

Unfortunately it was at my local cinema- commercial. I haven't been there in a while, and clearly they just whacked in their digital projectors without much attention to detail.

In any bright scene it was just horribly distracting and made worse by the fact that I could easily see the pixels in the digital image... Give me film anyday in that application.

Glad this is not something I will have to worry about with my XD screen.


----------



## blastermaster

Just got my XD material today. I had a buddy come over and help me install it. I have a curved screen and I am using the Screen Tight method. It went relatively well. I thought it would be a good idea to install the screen initially on the outside channel. It turned out to be a good idea, as there were some very minor wrinkles that disappeared when running spline material through the inner channel. What I didn't anticipate was how much we pulled the top and bottom of the screen together. Initially there was some definite sag, but when I added my support braces, it was actually too tight, and the spline started to come out on the bottom. So, we removed the supports, drank some beer and watched the first part of Skyfall. I decided it would be a good idea to leave everything "as is" for a week or two and see if there is any relaxing of the material. Then, I will add my braces back into the equation. If the relaxation of the material isn't as much as expected no biggie - I can hack off a bit of the supports to the point where they won't be pulling out the spline material. Currently there are a few very minor wrinkles at the edges that need to be attended to which amazingly aren't even noticeable while watching a movie. As it stands, the PQ is head and shoulders above my old screen - it is bright, crisp and the sound comes through it loud and clear.


If I were to do it again, I'd probably go with the grommets/o-ring method, but hey, I already had the screen tight installed, so...


I'll post pics in a bit here. Damnit Skyfall does look great on it, though!


----------



## MikeyD360

.


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22958415
> 
> 
> Just got my XD material today. I had a buddy come over and help me install it. I have a curved screen and I am using the Screen Tight method. It went relatively well. I thought it would be a good idea to install the screen initially on the outside channel. It turned out to be a good idea, as there were some very minor wrinkles that disappeared when running spline material through the inner channel. What I didn't anticipate was how much we pulled the top and bottom of the screen together. Initially there was some definite sag, but when I added my support braces, it was actually too tight, and the spline started to come out on the bottom. So, we removed the supports, drank some beer and watched the first part of Skyfall. I decided it would be a good idea to leave everything "as is" for a week or two and see if there is any relaxing of the material. Then, I will add my braces back into the equation. If the relaxation of the material isn't as much as expected no biggie - I can hack off a bit of the supports to the point where they won't be pulling out the spline material. Currently there are a few very minor wrinkles at the edges that need to be attended to which amazingly aren't even noticeable while watching a movie. As it stands, the PQ is head and shoulders above my old screen - it is bright, crisp and the sound comes through it loud and clear.
> 
> 
> If I were to do it again, I'd probably go with the grommets/o-ring method, but hey, I already had the screen tight installed, so...
> 
> 
> I'll post pics in a bit here. Damnit Skyfall does look great on it, though!


Damn you - Skyfall isn't released until March 27 here in Aus. Stupid movie studios!


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeyD360*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22956061
> 
> 
> Glad this is not something I will have to worry about with my XD screen.



I know that Seymour has the ability to cut their screens at an angle to aid in preventing moire, but the screen I ordered is about 150-156 inches diagonal. Chris told me that was too large to have cut at an angle. I don't know what the largest screen is that can be cut this way, but my size is too large.


I'm hoping I don't have moire issues. I won't have the screen up and projector mounted for another month or two.


----------



## wildcat91

Chris,


Can you post a picture of the economy frame in comparison to the premiere frame.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wildcat91*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22959538
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Can you post a picture of the economy frame in comparison to the premiere frame.



Iso shot. The edges were paint-penned a little along the front so the cross section looks weirder than it is.

 


Straight on:

 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## zheka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22936303
> 
> 
> I was just checking in on the SeymourAV site, dreaming as usual about finally having a screen when I discovered their new "Economy" fixed frame product. I decided a while back to go with the Centerstage material but figured I would do DIY to save money. With this new option it makes buying the whole package from Seymour more appealing and frankly, better for my budget or lack thereof. One thing I'm not clear on is if the frame is still made of aluminum or if it's something else. Having the rubber band and post system would really be nice and I wouldn't mind the split in the top and bottom pieces at all. My room is so dark it would probably never be seen. As luch would have it, it's available up to the exact size I was looking for (130" wide 2.35). I'm also wondering if there is some sort of cross member or support bar in the middle of the frame.



I used visual apex frame from a 120" screen with Centerstage XD without any modifications. As an upgrade this seemed like a no-brainer. But if one is looking for a sturdy aluminum frame without vertical support bars in the middle, VA screens maybe a cheaper alternative to the Seymour "economy" line even at full price . They are only available in 16:9 aspect ratio though.


FWIW.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Yzfbossman*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1920#post_22948970
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Chris, I would enjoy hearing about your testing if you were able to get it done.
> 
> 
> Thanks!



Sorry for the long delay. My meters and I were overdue for some quality intimate time together.


Here is a general top-down view of the A4K top left, Dazian's Celtic Cloth on the lower left, and Dazian's Coated Celtic Cloth on the right. There were several posts in the DIY forum up until around 2008 as it was a fairly popular DIY AT material. Simply search "CCC" when you have some PTO time to burn off. It was a pretty mediocre material that had low gain and wasn't very A.T. (-3dB started at 8kHz). Still, like the spandex screens they're currently playing with, for small screens where you're sitting up close, it can do the job. Be careful with interpixel light bleed through these types of materials, which can be seen as a haloing effect around something white on a black background. They also must have black backgrounds behind them or else additional light contamination from the back will further reduce the contrast ratio. Typical cost for CCC or spandex screens are about $60 of bulk material, so if you have expectations around the value point of painted screens, they can meet those expectations.


A little bit of the reference target is peeking out at the bottom so I could do a white balance correction. It's perhaps a tad overexposed but the balance is basically there.

 


Regarding gain, without any scaling or benchmarking to other materials (an unfortunate reality of practice these days - I may start rating things both ways), here are the test results:


Elite A4K: 0.69

Dazian Celtic Cloth: 0.72

Dazian Coated Celtic Cloth: 0.74


A valid question would be what the heck Dazian is coating it with, as nothing was visible to me. No additional sheen or anything, but the meter was picking up a tiny increase in brightness and a more accurate color. The color temperatures of the three materials are hard to see but here's the measurements:


Elite A4K: 6954 degrees, R: 96.5%, G: 97.3%, B: 106.2%. Essentially, too cool a white but I suppose if you're going to market a dim screen material having a slightly cool temperature can make it appear brighter since the eye is more sensitive to blue.

Dazian Celtic Cloth: 6765 degrees, R: 97.2%, G: 99.5%, B: 103.3%. Closer... This shows that while the weave, density and thread size appear identical, the thread itself is better.

Dazian Coated Celtic Cloth: 6593 degrees, R: 99.6%, G: 98.8%, B: 101.6%. Nailed it. This is essentially a pure white screen, which is likely why (along with its cost) it was quite popular in the DIY forums like the Wilsonart laminate.


A little closer shot:

 


Even closer ...

 


And a very close one at some angle so you can see how the weave pattern is the same, 100% polyester PFR.

 


I didn't measure the acoustical transparency of the Elite, as I assume it's similar to the CCC. These kinds of thicker weaves need to be stretched tight so they can open up and the transparency improves. Perhaps for proper sonic transparency Elite intends for their customers to have to stretch the material like this customer's third A4K screen from them:

 


Long story short, you can have a brighter, more color accurate 4K screen by making a Dazian CCC screen for much less money. I'm also guessing that you could put together a better fitting result.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zheka*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22960600
> 
> 
> I used visual apex frame from a 120" screen with Centerstage XD without any modifications. As an upgrade this seemed like a no-brainer. But if one is looking for a sturdy aluminum frame without vertical support bars in the middle, VA screens maybe a cheaper alternative to the Seymour "economy" line even at full price . They are only available in 16:9 aspect ratio though.
> 
> 
> FWIW.



Good to know. I'll put that on the site as a resource for those who need the total screen cost to come in even lower than our economy screen but aren't into wrapping wood frames.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## wildcat91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1900_100#post_22960479
> 
> 
> Iso shot. The edges were paint-penned a little along the front so the cross section looks weirder than it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight on:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thamks Chris,


Decisions, Decisions. Looking at a 115" diag screen, contemplating whether to DIY the frame or go with the economy.


----------



## wildcat91

Am I crazy or were there no pics of the economy frame up on the seymour website yesterday????


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wildcat91*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22960775
> 
> 
> Am I crazy or were there no pics of the economy frame up on the seymour website yesterday????



Pics were there when I first stumbled across this last week.


----------



## zheka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22960727
> 
> 
> Good to know. I'll put that on the site as a resource for those who need the total screen cost to come in even lower than our economy screen but aren't into wrapping wood frames.



That is a great attitude! I was a little worried if it was appropriate to post the info here.

Respect.


----------



## smokarz

Thanks for the info Chris.


This CCC material is quite impressive for a cheaper DIY alternative.


Did you have a chance to measure the spandex?


I think you would be much appreciated in the DIY forums.


----------



## jimmyk36

Zheha - that looks pretty cool on the VA screen.


I have a 135" elite sable screen and the clip setup looks kind of similar. I am wondering if the same thing could be done othe Elite frame? Has anyone here tried that?


----------



## zheka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jimmyk36*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22962548
> 
> 
> Zheha - that looks pretty cool on the VA screen.
> 
> 
> I have a 135" elite sable screen and the clip setup looks kind of similar. I am wondering if the same thing could be done othe Elite frame? Has anyone here tried that?



Why don't you get a free sample from Chris and give it a try? The fabric is fairly thick. If you manage to wrap it around the plastic rod, or whatever is used in Elite frames in its place, squeeze it into the groove and put the clip over then it's a go.


----------



## jimmyk36

I believe I just might do that. I think I already have a sample around here somewhere. Just gotta find it...


Thanks for putting the idea out there!


----------



## Yzfbossman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22960708
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding gain, without any scaling or benchmarking to other materials (an unfortunate reality of practice these days - I may start rating things both ways), here are the test results:
> 
> 
> Elite A4K: 0.69
> 
> Dazian Celtic Cloth: 0.72
> 
> Dazian Coated Celtic Cloth: 0.74
> 
> 
> 
> Elite A4K: 6954 degrees, R: 96.5%, G: 97.3%, B: 106.2%. Essentially, too cool a white but I suppose if you're going to market a dim screen material having a slightly cool temperature can make it appear brighter since the eye is more sensitive to blue.
> 
> Dazian Celtic Cloth: 6765 degrees, R: 97.2%, G: 99.5%, B: 103.3%. Closer... This shows that while the weave, density and thread size appear identical, the thread itself is better.
> 
> Dazian Coated Celtic Cloth: 6593 degrees, R: 99.6%, G: 98.8%, B: 101.6%. Nailed it. This is essentially a pure white screen, which is likely why (along with its cost) it was quite popular in the DIY forums like the Wilsonart laminate.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris! I really appreciate you posting this up.


I have large samples of XD and Enlightor 4K hanging on my wall right now.



It might be in this thread but I can't find it.... what are your measured gain and color temp readings of XD and E4k?


Thanks


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Yzfbossman*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22963531
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris! I really appreciate you posting this up.
> 
> 
> I have large samples of XD and Enlightor 4K hanging on my wall right now.
> 
> 
> 
> It might be in this thread but I can't find it.... what are your measured gain and color temp readings of XD and E4k?
> 
> 
> Thanks



For this round of testing and comparison purposes:


Enlightor-4K: unbenchmarked gain: 0.77, color temp: 6452, R: 101.2%, G: 99.0%, B: 99.8%

XD: unbenchmarked gain: 1.00, color temp: 6596, R: 98.9%, G: 100.0%, B: 101.1%


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> I think you would be much appreciated in the DIY forums. tongue.gif



Hahaha. I'm not touching that one with a ten foot pole.


----------



## edfowler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smokarz*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22962067
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info Chris
> 
> 
> I think you would be much appreciated in the DIY forums.



Ahem.... my backside is still smoking from accidentally mentioning 'Centerstage XD' over in "MM's forum" a few days ago trying to help a fellow out. I aint never going back over there.


----------



## MikeyD360

I put together my 140" curved XD screen yesterday.


First, let me say that it is a 1 man job, a rarity these days.

The process is very straightforward and simple, and the unique way that the screen material is fitted via the rubber bands is foolproof. Instant and perfect tension.

My first row is about 8ft to the eyeballs and I cannot make out the material in broad daylight. I have to stand about 4ft to see it.


Perfect!!!


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeyD360*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22967737
> 
> 
> I put together my 140" curved XD screen yesterday.
> 
> 
> First, let me say that it is a 1 man job, a rarity these days.
> 
> The process is very straightforward and simple, and the unique way that the screen material is fitted via the rubber bands is foolproof. Instant and perfect tension.
> 
> My first row is about 8ft to the eyeballs and I cannot make out the material in broad daylight. I have to stand about 4ft to see it.
> 
> 
> Perfect!!!



Nice! Let's see some pics!


----------



## smokarz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeyD360*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22967737
> 
> 
> I put together my 140" curved XD screen yesterday.
> 
> 
> First, let me say that it is a 1 man job, a rarity these days.
> 
> The process is very straightforward and simple, and the unique way that the screen material is fitted via the rubber bands is foolproof. Instant and perfect tension.
> 
> My first row is about 8ft to the eyeballs and I cannot make out the material in broad daylight. I have to stand about 4ft to see it.
> 
> 
> Perfect!!!




Sounds great. Some more details please?


Did you build your own frame?


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22967998
> 
> 
> Shhhhh..He's probably listening in right now.
> 
> And by the way, Dropzone, not sure if your avitar is a picture of your girlfriend, daughter or yourself (ya right) but you're going to have to change it. Very distracting to us home theater geeks.



Ha! It's my wife. I can't tell you how many PM's I have received about that. I always let her read them and we have a laugh.










Okay, I changed it. Same wife, different pic.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edfowler*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22967343
> 
> 
> Ahem.... my backside is still smoking from accidentally mentioning 'Centerstage XD' over in "MM's forum" a few days ago trying to help a fellow out. I aint never going back over there.



Haha, that sounds familiar. I created my "use Seymour fabric on a Jamestown frame" thread there initially (before the fabric was offered by James as an option), thinking it would be an option of interest to those considering DIY because they wanted to save money. Promptly got beaten up by the usual suspects. The folks there provide a great service, but are quite territorial.


----------



## smokarz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22968591
> 
> 
> Ha! It's my wife. I can't tell you how many PM's I have received about that. I always let her read them and we have a laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I changed it. Same wife, different pic.




LOL. Thought you just change the wife.


----------



## edfowler

Remind me again what dropzone7's avatar was. Was it the swimsuit from behind at the beach?


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edfowler*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22968809
> 
> 
> Remind me again what dropzone7's avatar was. Was it the swimsuit from behind at the beach?



Ha, I would be hard pressed to get a picture of my wife in a bathing suit. She doesn't like the sun or heat which is why she looks like Casper the ghost. If it were up to her we would live in the Arctic. She keeps the thermostat on 62 at night with fans pointed at us and I'm shivering under blankets.


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> Ha! It's my wife. I can't tell you how many PM's I have received about that. I always let her read them and we have a laugh. smile.gif
> 
> 
> Okay, I changed it. Same wife, different pic.



Haha, I was pretty certain I wasn't the only one that was thinking, "wow, is that his wife?" Grats, man.


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_22968876
> 
> 
> Haha, I was pretty certain I wasn't the only one that was thinking, "wow, is that his wife?" Grats, man.



Thanks. She tolerates my hobby. She gets a scrapbooking room and I get a home theater. Fair trade I think! Her average purchase at Michaels is like $10 while mine is well...more. I think I have changed subs three times over the years and she never noticed.







I bet a lot of guys here do the old gear switchero like that.


----------



## edfowler

ok I looked at your avatars in your profile. Sorry about that other reference, I must have been thinking of an AV forum avatar









Your wife is very cute


----------



## blastermaster

Just finished my screen and I really liked how it turned out. I haven't calibrated my pj yet, but I used the reference setting and I think it looks pretty damn good:

 

 


I'm using an Optoma HD3300 set on eco mode and reference setting with a Darbeevision Darblet set at HD50. Anamorphic lens is a budget HTB lens with CA correction element.


----------



## SKINSnCANES

Can someone with the vistacurv screen tell me where and how it mounts to the wall? Im building my false screen wall tomorrow and need to know where to put the support/screw points for it.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SKINSnCANES*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_22976252
> 
> 
> Can someone with the vistacurv screen tell me where and how it mounts to the wall? Im building my false screen wall tomorrow and need to know where to put the support/screw points for it.



I'd suggest heading over to the VistaCurve page here . Select the pdf on the right side of the "VistaCurve frame profile, ..." in whichever size you're interested in. They have top-down views which show the locations of the wall brackets.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## SKINSnCANES




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_22976663
> 
> 
> I'd suggest heading over to the VistaCurve page here . Select the pdf on the right side of the "VistaCurve frame profile, ..." in whichever size you're interested in. They have top-down views which show the locations of the wall brackets.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


Thanks Chris. Does the premiere frame have the same locations as the vista curv frame?


----------



## Yzfbossman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_22976145
> 
> 
> Just finished my screen and I really liked how it turned out. I haven't calibrated my pj yet, but I used the reference setting and I think it looks pretty damn good:
> 
> 
> I'm using an Optoma HD3300 set on eco mode and reference setting with a Darbeevision Darblet set at HD50. Anamorphic lens is a budget HTB lens with CA correction element.



Looks good.


What size is your screen? XD? And how far is you primary seating?


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> Looks good.
> 
> 
> What size is your screen? XD? And how far is you primary seating?



Thanks. It is ~138" diagonal using the XD material. I am sitting 13' away and the picture is phenomenal. I haven't yet watched a 3D movie on it, but I'm really looking forward to the extra brightness the screen material will provide.


----------



## Yzfbossman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22964426
> 
> 
> For this round of testing and comparison purposes:
> 
> 
> Enlightor-4K: unbenchmarked gain: 0.77, color temp: 6452, R: 101.2%, G: 99.0%, B: 99.8%
> 
> XD: unbenchmarked gain: 1.00, color temp: 6596, R: 98.9%, G: 100.0%, B: 101.1%
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SKINSnCANES*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_22976788
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris. Does the premiere frame have the same locations as the vista curv frame?



No, the Premier frame has an 8' bar across the top which can be mounted in many locations. Also, the bottom features two reversible L-brackets 117" apart, attaching into the lower frame into one of three sets of threaded holes.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Jedirun

A note on texture. We recently picked up some theater seating on Craiglist. Because of their size, I ended up having to put them about 2 feet closer to the screen than I had planed, 9-10 feet away, instead of 11-12. I was worried that the weave on the Centerstage XD would be visible or distracting. However, we watched Casino Royale last night. While it is quite possible that there were places that I might have seen the weave if I was look for it, I just spent the movie enjoying the picture quality and never once noticed the texture.


----------



## RickR15

I just installed a Seymour AV 130" AT electric 2:35 screen with power vertical masking and XD screen material. I sit approximately 11feet from the screen and it looks awesome. I am running a Panasonic Pt-ae8000u at a throw of 14 feet. The screen drops down in front of a 65" plasma. The picture is plenty bright even in 3d. I cannot see the weave at this distance. Chris was awesome to deal with and highly recommended. If you are looking for an awesome screen at a great price I would highly recommend talking to Chris.

Rick


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickR15*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23049015
> 
> 
> I just installed a Seymour AV 130" AT electric 2:35 screen with power vertical masking and XD screen material. I sit approximately 11feet from the screen and it looks awesome. I am running a Panasonic Pt-ae8000u at a throw of 14 feet. The screen drops down in front of a 65" plasma. The picture is plenty bright even in 3d. I cannot see the weave at this distance. Chris was awesome to deal with and highly recommended. If you are looking for an awesome screen at a great price I would highly recommend talking to Chris.
> 
> Rick



I am considering their dual-roller CIW screen. Can you tell me a bit about your installation -- how much space is required past each end of the casing? Did you happen to have ceiling joists in the right places, or did you have to engineer something?


What mechanism did you choose for control? Are the two rollers independently controlled?


Chris has been very patient with me, answering lots of questions via email and PM, but I'm eager to hear from a user who has installed one of these screens.


----------



## tbraden32

Pictures ^^^?


----------



## RickR15




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23049367
> 
> 
> I am considering their dual-roller CIW screen. Can you tell me a bit about your installation -- how much space is required past each end of the casing? Did you happen to have ceiling joists in the right places, or did you have to engineer something?
> 
> 
> What mechanism did you choose for control? Are the two rollers independently controlled?
> 
> 
> Chris has been very patient with me, answering lots of questions via email and PM, but I'm eager to hear from a user who has installed one of these screens.



I have a low suspended ceiling in my basement with a duct that I had to deal with. The screen uses the same mounting system as the single roller screens. The difference is there are two mounting rails instead of one. The rails can be adjusted. I didn’t mount my screen from the edges. I used 4 pieces of 1/4 inch threaded rod. I attached the rods to the rails approx. 30" in from each end. My joists run parallel to the screen frame. I used two pieces of perforated angle iron like they use for mounting garage doors. I fastened the angle iron across two joists. The threaded rod was run up through the drop ceiling and attached to the angle iron. This way I was able to adjust the screen perfectly left to right and forward and back. The wiring comes out the left side of the case end if you’re facing the screen. You have to allow a couple inches for that. There are two roller systems and they are independent. The Panasonic projector has two dc triggers, so I used those to control the screen and masking rollers. I ordered the two motor controllers and trigger modules from Chris with the screen. It works very slick with the auto zoom function. It’s all automatic. I called Chris a few times and he was very helpful. Probably the best customer service I have ever experienced. I live in northern Canada and Chris made sure the screen got to me safe and sound. It took about a month from the time I ordered it till I received it. I was told this in advance though and there were no surprises. I am very Happy!


----------



## RickR15




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbraden32*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23050223
> 
> 
> Pictures ^^^?




I will try and get some pictures up soon. What is the easiest way to do that?


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickR15*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23050635
> 
> 
> I have a low suspended ceiling in my basement with a duct that I had to deal with. The screen uses the same mounting system as the single roller screens. The difference is there are two mounting rails instead of one. The rails can be adjusted. I didn’t mount my screen from the edges. I used 4 pieces of 1/4 inch threaded rod. I attached the rods to the rails approx. 30" in from each end. My joists run parallel to the screen frame. I used two pieces of perforated angle iron like they use for mounting garage doors. I fastened the angle iron across two joists. The threaded rod was run up through the drop ceiling and attached to the angle iron. This way I was able to adjust the screen perfectly left to right and forward and back. The wiring comes out the left side of the case end if you’re facing the screen. You have to allow a couple inches for that.



That sounds different than how Chris explained it to me. Here's what he said:


"The picture ( at the bottom here ) shows that on each side are two DIN rails. Pretighten them to the case, lift it to the ceiling, and bolt to the ceiling."


Which sounds to me like each DIN rail sticks out beyond each end of the case. How else could I bolt the rails to the ceiling if they're already attached to the case? But maybe I misunderstood.


The instructions for the single DIN system explain how to attach the case to the mounted rail, but I don't understand how that method could work with two parallel rails.


I am trying to mount this as close as possible to the crown molding in my living room, so I need to understand all this in order to buy the correct size.


----------



## RickR15




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23050703
> 
> 
> That sounds different than how Chris explained it to me. Here's what he said:
> 
> 
> "The picture ( at the bottom here ) shows that on each side are two DIN rails. Pretighten them to the case, lift it to the ceiling, and bolt to the ceiling."
> 
> 
> Which sounds to me like each DIN rail sticks out beyond each end of the case. How else could I bolt the rails to the ceiling if they're already attached to the case? But maybe I misunderstood.
> 
> 
> The instructions for the single DIN system explain how to attach the case to the mounted rail, but I don't understand how that method could work with two parallel rails.
> 
> 
> I am trying to mount this as close as possible to the crown molding in my living room, so I need to understand all this in order to buy the correct size.



That picture is exactly what mine is like. There are four 4 foot sections of Din rail. One is at each corner. They can be adjusted in or out as needed. Since I had a drop sealing, I couldn’t attach the rails directly to the ceiling. That is why I used the threaded rod as described earlier.


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickR15*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23050738
> 
> 
> That picture is exactly what mine is like. There are four 4 foot sections of Din rail. One is at each corner. They can be adjusted in or out as needed. Since I had a drop sealing, I couldn’t attach the rails directly to the ceiling. That is why I used the threaded rod as described earlier.



Thanks for your patience and explanations. I'm still having trouble picturing this. Did you install the rails first, and then mount the case to them? So that means the rails do not extend beyond the ends of the case at all?


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22958415
> 
> 
> Just got my XD material today. I had a buddy come over and help me install it. I have a curved screen and I am using the Screen Tight method. It went relatively well. I thought it would be a good idea to install the screen initially on the outside channel. It turned out to be a good idea, as there were some very minor wrinkles that disappeared when running spline material through the inner channel. What I didn't anticipate was how much we pulled the top and bottom of the screen together. Initially there was some definite sag, but when I added my support braces, it was actually too tight, and the spline started to come out on the bottom. So, we removed the supports, drank some beer and watched the first part of Skyfall. I decided it would be a good idea to leave everything "as is" for a week or two and see if there is any relaxing of the material. Then, I will add my braces back into the equation. If the relaxation of the material isn't as much as expected no biggie - I can hack off a bit of the supports to the point where they won't be pulling out the spline material. Currently there are a few very minor wrinkles at the edges that need to be attended to which amazingly aren't even noticeable while watching a movie. As it stands, the PQ is head and shoulders above my old screen - it is bright, crisp and the sound comes through it loud and clear.
> 
> 
> If I were to do it again, I'd probably go with the grommets/o-ring method, but hey, I already had the screen tight installed, so...
> 
> 
> I'll post pics in a bit here. Damnit Skyfall does look great on it, though!



Nice to see that people are still using the spline method. That is what I did to retrofit a screen for XD fabric back in 2009. I was listed on here as mjg100 then.







I see Chris still has the link up under his DIY section. This method will get the screen tighter than a drum and it stays that way for years.


----------



## RickR15




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23050788
> 
> 
> Thanks for your patience and explanations. I'm still having trouble picturing this. Did you install the rails first, and then mount the case to them? So that means the rails do not extend beyond the ends of the case at all?



I removed each rail to attach a threaded rod to it. I adjusted my din rails so that they did not extend past the case. You can adjust them however you like. The rails and threaded rod were then fastened to the screen case and then the screen was lifted up to the drop ceiling. I had two guys hold up the screen while I attached the threaded rods to the angle iron previously attached to the joists. (I drilled out the ceiling tiles and put them in place before lifting the screen. I then removed the tiles beside them so that I could fasten the rods to the joist brackets.)The screen case is mounted about 8” below the drop ceiling. The rods run threw 4 small holes in the drop ceiling. It looks very clean and the screen looks like it’s just floating there. It’s similar to being supported by cables I guess.


----------



## mxav

  


Hello chris


I made my screen with your screen xd but i see

The fibers are stuck to two places and I have therefore two small hole on the screen


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickR15*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23053062
> 
> 
> I removed each rail to attach a threaded rod to it. I adjusted my din rails so that they did not extend past the case. You can adjust them however you like. The rails and threaded rod were then fastened to the screen case and then the screen was lifted up to the drop ceiling. I had two guys hold up the screen while I attached the threaded rods to the angle iron previously attached to the joists..



Oooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh now I get it!


I think I will have a little more trouble since I'm fastening directly to the ceiling, but since I'll need to engineer something anyway (since there's no joists where I need them), I'm pretty sure I can make it work.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mxav*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23053645
> 
> 
> 
> Hello chris
> 
> 
> I made my screen with your screen xd but i see
> 
> The fibers are stuck to two places and I have therefore two small hole on the screen



Hi Xavier -


We can send a replacement. I've replied to your email, so please check your inbox.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## ChopShop1

Hey All, I have posted questions here some time ago, but my plans have changed a bit and it's time to pull the trigger so..here goes. I am going to be purchasing my Seymour screen now, and am trying to decide on the XD vs 4K. I am all but certain that I will be using the Display Development HD5 for a pj. It is said to have 6k lumens pre calibration and be a great piece. It is a 2k pj, so no 4k yet, as the cost of a 4k pj that can light up the screen I want is about as much as a home. I am going with the 200" wide Seymour, but need to decide which one. My room has three rows. Measurements to the eyes of viewers as follows...first row @ 13ft, second row @ 20ft adn third row @27ft (roughly). Because of the screen size and potential upgrade path a few yrs down the road, i initiall wanted to EN4K, but my struggles to find an affordable pj that can light up 200" of width have made me cautious. By all accounts, the DD should be able to handle the lower gain of the 4k screen, but I don't want to make a mistake here. I know the front row is far enough away for the XD, but still can't help but feel like the 4k will be better...any help??


----------



## Yzfbossman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChopShop1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23057963
> 
> 
> Hey All, I have posted questions here some time ago, but my plans have changed a bit and it's time to pull the trigger so..here goes. I am going to be purchasing my Seymour screen now, and am trying to decide on the XD vs 4K. I am all but certain that I will be using the Display Development HD5 for a pj. It is said to have 6k lumens pre calibration and be a great piece. It is a 2k pj, so no 4k yet, as the cost of a 4k pj that can light up the screen I want is about as much as a home. I am going with the 200" wide Seymour, but need to decide which one. My room has three rows. Measurements to the eyes of viewers as follows...first row @ 13ft, second row @ 20ft adn third row @27ft (roughly). Because of the screen size and potential upgrade path a few yrs down the road, i initiall wanted to EN4K, but my struggles to find an affordable pj that can light up 200" of width have made me cautious. By all accounts, the DD should be able to handle the lower gain of the 4k screen, but I don't want to make a mistake here. I know the front row is far enough away for the XD, but still can't help but feel like the 4k will be better...any help??




Take my comments with a grain of salt, as it’s easy for me to spend your money







.


I have large samples of the XD and EN4K on my wall... at 13ft the XD weave is not be noticeable.

Throwing a 200" screen will make the pixels large enough that the EN4K * I don't think* will give any advantage

More gain on the XD for that big screen

XD will cost way less than the EN4K


I'd go with XD


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> The next-gen woven Center Stage XD screen fabric has the highest gain on the market (1.2), providing you with a sharp, bright image from edge to edge at 4K resolutions



ChopShop, this is straight from the website. I would save your beans for other AV stuff and know that you are going to get a nice, bright screen that's 4k compatible by getting the XD. I love mine.


----------



## ChopShop1

Good points guys, and thank you for your insight on it. I have read some of those statements on the site, etc, just wanted to be sure that noone thought that there was a reason to need the en4k with the setup I'm planning. The XD is certainly a bargain at the price, I can get it, my processor and oppo for the price of the en4k screen.


----------



## BobL

We use both and I definitely prefer the 4K. The XD does have a little more gain but the surface isn't as smooth and the difference is noticeable to me. For most people in the under $5K range I'd tell them to spend more on the projector and less on the screen and go with the XD. But as you start going with higher budgets you might as well get that extra performance from a quality screen. I don't know what the price of an HD5 is but if it is anywhere near the HD4 you are not in the budget range of projectors. Is the HD5 shipping yet? Get some samples and check them out. See which you like, maybe the gain is more important to you with that screen size or maybe you prefer the picture quality of the 4k. But, don't skimp on a screen when you are spending that type of money. You'll be much happier in the long run if you know you got the screen that better suited your purpose. Give Chris a call he'll help you out.


----------



## ChopShop1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BobL*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23059255
> 
> 
> We use both and I definitely prefer the 4K. The XD does have a little more gain but the surface isn't as smooth and the difference is noticeable to me. For most people in the under $5K range I'd tell them to spend more on the projector and less on the screen and go with the XD. But as you start going with higher budgets you might as well get that extra performance from a quality screen. I don't know what the price of an HD5 is but if it is anywhere near the HD4 you are not in the budget range of projectors. Is the HD5 shipping yet? Get some samples and check them out. See which you like, maybe the gain is more important to you with that screen size or maybe you prefer the picture quality of the 4k. But, don't skimp on a screen when you are spending that type of money. You'll be much happier in the long run if you know you got the screen that better suited your purpose. Give Chris a call he'll help you out.



Thanks Bob. The HD5 is deff not budget, but for the class it's in, it's an outright bargain! From what I would gather, one would need to spend damn close to six figures to improve on its performance...heck, I'vs been told by a few that I'd need to spend upwards of $75k with some of the other well known manufacturers to get the same performance. I am still going to fly out to see one in the next couple of weeks before I buy it, but so far the details I have gathered in my research look outstanding. 6k lumens, great contrast, veriscope, etc. I am still trying to figure out which model proejctiondesign it coincides with but am coming up cold. Hopefully I wil hear back from Jim soon with more details.


If the HD5 performs like they say, the 4k will be a no brainer, I think, as it should have enough claibrated lumens to get me over 20ftl, even on the .85 gain screen. I am a real knit-picker too, so based on the few I have heard that say they can see the texture in the XD from a decent distance, I'd say it's the right choice. The price on either screen is fantastic, so it's not really about that, but moreso the final assessment of the HD5 and it's true light output capabilities will be the deciding factor.


----------



## BobL

It is definitely a good value for its performance and with Jim involved I am sure it will perform. Jim taught one of my ISF classes many years ago. I think it is smart move to fly out and demo it. It is not about seeing the texture as much as that the pixels are less distorted on it. It might not be noticeable depending on your seating distance. Jim might have some suggestions for you too. Every screen has their trade offs. Also, don't forget to factors in bulb life when calculating ft/l, you want to have good brightness throughout the bulb's life or factor buying bulbs more often. I'm sure if you are going to this extent you are not going to watch this in brighter less accurate modes. I'm not sure if the HD5 offers modes like the less expensive projectors do. Something to consider anyway. Jim will definitely steer you in the right direction.


----------



## ChopShop1

Yeah, I hope ot hear back from him soon. It will help me out a great deal to pick his brain some more.


I wish the specs were up on the DD website, I just can't remember the exact details.


I certainly want as many hours as I can out of the bulb. I feel like if I can start with mid 20sftl, even right before replacement I should still be in the high teens. I'd say I like it a bit brighter than average. Too bright and my eyes hurt, too dima nd it feels "cheap looking". I have a local shop here that has a Runco unit on there 12 ft screen and it measures about 13ftl. It's a bit dimmer than I would like, but not worlds away.


----------



## BobL

Usually bulbs lose 50-60% or more throughout their lifespan. They lose 20-25% fairly quickly then gradually decrease over that but this depends on the bulb. It also depends on how manufacturers rate bulbs. I've seen bulbs rated for 1500 hours go 5000 hours but the manufacture rated at 1500 hours to ensure proper brightness and color uniformity. Most manufacturers (probably not Jim) do the opposite and rate their bulbs until they die with no concern about performance. I'm sure he'll go over it with you.


----------



## mxav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980#post_23056249
> 
> 
> Hi Xavier -
> 
> 
> We can send a replacement. I've replied to your email, so please check your inbox.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



thanks chris.


waiting for the replacement.


i tested the screen, except this conception default, very good screen !

better than my ex lumene movie palace no transonore !


----------



## ChopShop1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BobL*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2010#post_23060200
> 
> 
> Usually bulbs lose 50-60% or more throughout their lifespan. They lose 20-25% fairly quickly then gradually decrease over that but this depends on the bulb. It also depends on how manufacturers rate bulbs. I've seen bulbs rated for 1500 hours go 5000 hours but the manufacture rated at 1500 hours to ensure proper brightness and color uniformity. Most manufacturers (probably not Jim) do the opposite and rate their bulbs until they die with no concern about performance. I'm sure he'll go over it with you.



Wow, I hadn't realized it would be that much. I thought I'd be dealing with 30-40%. That's something else to consider. I called Jim Burns last week, but haven't heard back from him on the PJ. Hopefully I will soon.


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> Nice to see that people are still using the spline method. That is what I did to retrofit a screen for XD fabric back in 2009. I was listed on here as mjg100 then. smile.gif I see Chris still has the link up under his DIY section. This method will get the screen tighter than a drum and it stays that way for years.



You know, as much as it was a pain installing (and really only due to the way I built my screen), it has not lost any tension. At all. It is still snug as hell. I would recommend splining it for sure. That way, if down the road you want to upgrade, you just take out the old material and spline in the new. The next latest and greatest Seymour DIY screen material is next in line for my frame.


----------



## ProMethus

Hello all. It has been a while since my last visit...really since 2008 when I originally built my theater. I got some good info then and am looking for some more.


Anyway, I am looking to go to 3D and am currently looking into screen options. I will be more than likely purchasing the 6020UB and am interested in the Seymour screens but may have to go somewhere else..


Theater Makeup
Screen is placed within a black proscenium/stage area combo

Room width is roughly 16'

Proscenium dimensions are roughly 3 ft deep left and right with a 45 degree angle at the beginning, and roughly 2 feet deep center/top

Stage depth is roughly 3.5 - 4 feet deep

Everything is dark painted but the ceiling (white) and the stage area carpet (medium dark beige)

Projector is mounted 14' 9" from the screen on the ceiling

Seating is 14' and 20' from the screen (second row is also elevated by 12")

Current screen is painted (Screen Goo)

Screen dimension is diagonal 138"

Ceiling in 8'

Screen is 17" from the floor


Considerations
Want a fixed screen

Will paint over current screen with flat black paint

Will watch 3D when appropriate and the same for 2D

Gaming will also be used often in 2D

There will be times when TV will be watched with some lighting

95% of the viewing will be at night

All movies are watched with no lights, except the riser step light at 40%

All lights are completely controlled


****With all of this in mind, should I go gray or white and at what gain?****




Thanks in advance for your input,

Wayne


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> I am looking to go to 3D



You're looking at about 18 FL not accounting for bulb wear. If you want 3D, you're going to want a bright screen. I think the general consensus is for a completely light controlled room, white is the way to go (someone correct me if I'm wrong). But, I'm lazy and don't feel like doing the math - I'm going to assume you're also pretty close to the ceiling with your screen if you want something that size. Your white ceilings are going to be a bit of an issue if you want to keep them that way. If you do, a grey screen will help keep that contrast, but what will be made up in blacks will be lost in brightness, especially in 3D.


Also, I'm assuming that since you're posting in this thread you need acoustical transparency? With a screen that size are you planning on putting your speakers behind the screen? You will have room with your left and rights, but your screen will be only 17" from the floor and you want your sound to be hitting you at ear height, so...


FWIW, I have the Centerstage material and I love it. It is nice and bright. If you need AT and your projector has good contrast levels, I'd go with the XD. If you don't watch much 3D and you like a dimmer, more reference picture with deeper blacks, go with the 4K material. Just my 0.02.


----------



## ProMethus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2010#post_23092785
> 
> 
> You're looking at about 18 FL not accounting for bulb wear. If you want 3D, you're going to want a bright screen. I think the general consensus is for a completely light controlled room, white is the way to go (someone correct me if I'm wrong). But, I'm lazy and don't feel like doing the math - I'm going to assume you're also pretty close to the ceiling with your screen if you want something that size. Your white ceilings are going to be a bit of an issue if you want to keep them that way. If you do, a grey screen will help keep that contrast, but what will be made up in blacks will be lost in brightness, especially in 3D.
> 
> 
> Also, I'm assuming that since you're posting in this thread you need acoustical transparency? With a screen that size are you planning on putting your speakers behind the screen? You will have room with your left and rights, but your screen will be only 17" from the floor and you want your sound to be hitting you at ear height, so...
> 
> 
> FWIW, I have the Centerstage material and I love it. It is nice and bright. If you need AT and your projector has good contrast levels, I'd go with the XD. If you don't watch much 3D and you like a dimmer, more reference picture with deeper blacks, go with the 4K material. Just my 0.02.




Thanks for the reply blastermaster...


My screen is surrounded by my black proscenium on the left, right and top, so my speakers are in front of the screen (no need for AT). I do get bounce from the screen to the ceiling but some of it is negated by the upper proscenium, which comes out about 31" from the screen, and reaches to the ceiling (about 9").


Sounds like the XD is AT, so what do you think about the Glacier White (non-AT)?



Wayne


----------



## jimmyk36




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2000_100#post_23080888
> 
> 
> You know, as much as it was a pain installing (and really only due to the way I built my screen), it has not lost any tension. At all. It is still snug as hell. I would recommend splining it for sure. That way, if down the road you want to upgrade, you just take out the old material and spline in the new. The next latest and greatest Seymour DIY screen material is next in line for my frame.



What is the diameter of the screen spline that you are using with the XD material?


Are you using the screen cap after you install the spline?


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> What is the diameter of the screen spline that you are using with the XD material?
> 
> 
> Are you using the screen cap after you install the spline?



The thinner stuff (0.160" diameter) and no, I didn't install the screen cap. I wasn't sure if it would fit and I'm too cheap and lazy to find out. Seems to work just fine without it. If it ever became a problem, though, I'd obviously ante up and buy the stuff.


----------



## Crabalocker

I don't have time to read through the whole thread so I hope someone can answer. Time is important as my friend is starting to get frustrated and starting to lose interest in projectors....we can't allow this to happen!


I sold my Epson 8500Ub to a buddy and after having a terrible experience with elunevision he is now considering A seymour electric.(I can answer any PM if anyone is ever considering the Elunevision Audioweave and is wondering what a crappy experience he had).


The issue or question is with moire. I understand Chris says they don't tilt the H105 but does anyone with an Epson setup and a screen of this size ever experience moire? (non-tilted)


What size do they start to tilt for the electric screens? Can a custom screen, H105, be made to tilt?


I feel bad for his experience and hope to have some answers for him. Any help would be much appreciated.


Thanks


----------



## DAlba

Does anyone have any pictures of this screen being used in dim lighting? I have a Black Diamond screen and we often turn on dim lighting when we are eating dinner while watching a movie for example.


Also how does it compare to Screen Innovations Gamma Maestro 4K 1.1 screen material? If the price of both screens was the same which would you buy? One of the things that attracts me to the Seymour is the removable masking panels. Not sure if those could work with a SI screen.


----------



## Crabalocker

Let me word it this way.


Anyone with the seymour electric and an Epson projector? anyone get any moire issues with it?


----------



## rx-8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2010#post_23106921
> 
> 
> Let me word it this way.
> 
> 
> Anyone with the seymour electric and an Epson projector? anyone get any moire issues with it?



For what it's worth I have an Epson 6020 and a fixed 120" wide Seymour screen - absolutely no issues here. I haven't heard of any moire issues with the retractable screens but I would either call or email Chris and get his thoughts on this. I'm sure he knows.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DAlba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2010#post_23105774
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any pictures of this screen being used in dim lighting? I have a Black Diamond screen and we often turn on dim lighting when we are eating dinner while watching a movie for example.
> 
> 
> Also how does it compare to Screen Innovations Gamma Maestro 4K 1.1 screen material? If the price of both screens was the same which would you buy? One of the things that attracts me to the Seymour is the removable masking panels. Not sure if those could work with a SI screen.



The XD measures +13% brighter than the Gamma Maestro 4K, with more accurate color and a finer texture resulting in about a +2ft seating distance advantage.


The Gamma Maestro's gain measures the same as our S-SE Enlightor-4K material but without as accurate a color and the primary advantage of the Enlightor-4K: that it has no visible features indicating that it's acoustically transparent and therefore has no minimum seating distance.


While I recommend their Black Diamonds all day long for the rooms that need it, I don't see any purpose to their Maestro. At least their white is better than the dreadful white/gray checkerboard "gray" material they try to use.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2010#post_23106921
> 
> 
> Let me word it this way.
> 
> 
> Anyone with the seymour electric and an Epson projector? anyone get any moire issues with it?



We haven't had a moire issue with the retractables for a long time, but that being said, in a non-tilted orientation we'd like to keep that record. It would be fairly simple to prove that your projected image and size are ok via a sample.


Or, we could discuss a retractable with the Enlightor-4K which is impossible to moire at any size due to it not having any pattern at all. You have the lumen budget for it.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Jdgate

Not a Seymour screen owner yet but I want to give a shout out to Chris for graciously letting me come to his factory for a little tour and answering a ton of questions (helps that I happen to live in the same town). I am still a couple of months off from a purchase and expressed that to him. He answered all the questions I had, gave me a sample of their screen material, and did not talk over my head. Very helpful to a newb like me. All I can say is I don't need to look at any other screens, the service alone has sold me. Thanks again Chris.


----------



## autreym

Just got my 135 inch Seymour AV screen with Center Stage XD material in 2.35:1 format. I ended up purchasing the Premier frame and have to say, I am very very pleased with the product in pretty much every respect!


The build quality is outstanding and I found the assembly to be a breeze (and I am not the handiest guy on this type of stuff). Aligning the frame, laying out the screen, and installing the grommet and o-rings is cupcake city. Took me less than an hour to build it and get it up on my screen wall.


I'm using a Sony 50ES projector and the picture quality on the XD fabric is exceptional and I haven't even calibrated my image. I'm sitting about 16 feet from the screen and you can't see the fabric whatsoever. Brightness is great as well which is something I was mildly concerned about given I prefer a brighter punchier image in general. Gonna try to run some 3d testing this weekend.


Have to say that Chris and Mike (from AVS) were a pleasure to work with as well. I drilled them with questions and they patiently answered them all, including providing the specific dimensions of the custom size screen that I ordered so I could build out my screen wall while the screen was in production. I got impatient on the shipping and they were responsive even on that front, great customer service all around.


Highly, highly recommend anyone on the fence go with this screen. Can't say enough how impressed I am with the product.


----------



## blastermaster

Autreym,


grats on the new screen. I echo your sentiments - this material is fantastic. You won't be disappointed with 3D. I just finished watching "The Flying Swords of Dragon Gate" and it's a ridiculous movie with moving subtitles all over the place but the 3D is amazing and the XD ensures it's nice and bright!


----------



## Crabalocker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rx-8*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2010#post_23107035
> 
> 
> For what it's worth I have an Epson 6020 and a fixed 120" wide Seymour screen - absolutely no issues here. I haven't heard of any moire issues with the retractable screens but I would either call or email Chris and get his thoughts on this. I'm sure he knows.



Good to hear! Thanks, is your screen material tilted?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2010#post_23107457
> 
> 
> We haven't had a moire issue with the retractables for a long time, but that being said, in a non-tilted orientation we'd like to keep that record. It would be fairly simple to prove that your projected image and size are ok via a sample.
> 
> 
> Or, we could discuss a retractable with the Enlightor-4K which is impossible to moire at any size due to it not having any pattern at all. You have the lumen budget for it.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris





Yea from what I remember, It's been a while since my XD DIY build, when I was researching screens the moire issues were affecting the smaller (100" or less) screens. Was this the case or was it more to do with the original screen material?


Chris what's the best way with the sample to test for moire?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2010#post_23114625
> 
> 
> Good to hear! Thanks, is your screen material tilted?
> 
> Yea from what I remember, It's been a while since my XD DIY build, when I was researching screens the moire issues were affecting the smaller (100" or less) screens. Was this the case or was it more to do with the original screen material?
> 
> 
> Chris what's the best way with the sample to test for moire?



To test for moire, place the sample over something black. If we sent you a no-tilt sample (usually for retractable evaluation) or a tilted one, simply confirm that you have the material oriented correctly for the screen type. (As a side note, testing for moire on a tilted sample isn't necessary. Those are usually just used for texture and brightness evaluation.)


Then focus the projector sharply and project a white field. If you don't see wavy bands of color, zoom to different sizes to see if it can occur and at what sizes.


While it's possible for the XD to moire in a nontilted retractable, it's rare and limited to the smaller sizes. We replace a lot of Elites as a result.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Crabalocker

Thanks for the info Chris, much appreciated.


BTW, I'm still loving my Seymour XD screen I made a few years back (153").


----------



## rx-8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2010#post_23114625
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rx-8*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2010#post_23107035
> 
> 
> For what it's worth I have an Epson 6020 and a fixed 120" wide Seymour screen - absolutely no issues here. I haven't heard of any moire issues with the retractable screens but I would either call or email Chris and get his thoughts on this. I'm sure he knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to hear! Thanks, is your screen material tilted?
Click to expand...


No tilt and no moire.


----------



## mundis

Anyone have any reference photos on how to mount an AT screen without building a false wall around it? Is it better to mount with a bracket from the ceiling or are there stable brackets available that can attach to the vertical sides of the screen? I plan on utilizing Axiom speakers on the wall and they protrude approx. 4" from the wall, so the screen should have a couple of inches clearance from the speakers, correct?


Thank you


----------



## foraye




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mundis*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1980_60#post_23127399
> 
> 
> Anyone have any reference photos on how to mount an AT screen without building a false wall around it? Is it better to mount with a bracket from the ceiling or are there stable brackets available that can attach to the vertical sides of the screen? I plan on utilizing Axiom speakers on the wall and they protrude approx. 4" from the wall, so the screen should have a couple of inches clearance from the speakers, correct?
> 
> 
> Thank you



I built mine based on this thread MINIMALIST APPROACH TO SCREEN WALL


----------



## Crabalocker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2010#post_23116412
> 
> 
> To test for moire, place the sample over something black. If we sent you a no-tilt sample (usually for retractable evaluation) or a tilted one, simply confirm that you have the material oriented correctly for the screen type. (As a side note, testing for moire on a tilted sample isn't necessary. Those are usually just used for texture and brightness evaluation.)
> 
> 
> Then focus the projector sharply and project a white field. If you don't see wavy bands of color, zoom to different sizes to see if it can occur and at what sizes.
> 
> 
> While it's possible for the XD to moire in a nontilted retractable, it's rare and limited to the smaller sizes. We replace a lot of Elites as a result.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



I told my friend to bring his 8500Ub over to my place and we tested it on my xd screen. We just tilted the projector to match the tilt of my screen. While we didn't see any colour banding, moire, we did notice some gray banding through the white field??? The gray banding was more pronounced went zooming in but was still faintly noticeable when zoomed out to his wanted screen size (126"). The banding appeared to be restricted to the center of the screen.


We didn't notice it when watching a film only during the white field test. Is this still moire even though it had no colour but just gray banding?


Any thoughts Chris?


----------



## flognam

Epson 6020 and a 139" curved Seymour Av AT Screen

Just another Happy Customer!!


----------



## foraye

I finally got around to watching a movie or two on the XD screen!


Grabbed a few pics with my mobile...


----------



## DIYHomeTheater

Love my Center Stage XD received last month. Chris' service was excellent. With a Sony HW50ES projector, I get an acceptably bright image on my 140" wide 'Scope screen with an anamorphic lens in a light controlled room with projector in 'low lamp' mode. Changing to 'high lamp' makes the picture brighter by a smidge. My lamp has only 40 hours on it, so it is too early to tell how the image will dim. I am optimistic that it will be OK. My projector is installed for the longest throw possible, so that dims the image a bit as well. From 13' feet I dont see the screen weave at all.


----------



## marjen

How is the gain on the xd material compared to the original DIY smx material? I have a new projector and think I have some moire issues with the smx, so looking for new DIY at options? Anyone compare the two?cthanks.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *marjen*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23149210
> 
> 
> How is the gain on the xd material compared to the original DIY smx material? I have a new projector and think I have some moire issues with the smx, so looking for new DIY at options? Anyone compare the two?cthanks.



It's 2-4% higher, which is not noticeable difference unless you switch from one right to the other.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Actually that's an incomplete answer. I believe in 2008 he switched materials to a larger roll size from China. While the color quality was good, the texture was still bad and gain dropped to about -14% compared to the XD. Unless you were one of the early adopters you would definitely notice an increase in brightness upgrading to the XD. He never revised the spec and called both materials "Cineweave HD." There are many AVSers that upgraded from the "original" SMX to the XD.


His "4K" material was never officially spec'd but in my measurements was -27% lower gain than the XD, color temp was a good 6683K (R: 98.1%, G: 99.5%, B: 102.3%). I haven't tested its audio, but it's so close to the blanket that is Elite's A4K and the DIY material from Dazian (CCC) that you could use the exhaustive measurements in the DIY section for CCC. It's ironic that his material got popular based on the comparison to Dazian's CCC, and yet CCC performs better than his or Elite's "4K." Perhaps CCC was ahead of its time...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## MikeyD360

My 140" curved Seymour - very happy - excuse the iPhone pics.

 
 
 


That last pic taken basically up on the screen


----------



## Crabalocker

Looks fantastic. Your room looks like it's gonna be awesome!


Do you have a build thread?


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23158259
> 
> 
> Looks fantastic. Your room looks like it's gonna be awesome!
> 
> 
> Do you have a build thread?



Yep - http://www.avsforum.com/t/1442779/mikes-down-under-theatre-build-piccys-galore 


It's nothing amazing - I had/have limited budget, no construction knowledge and is my first attempt.

Still underway but no Internet at the moment, so no new pics for another week or do.


----------



## Crabalocker

Just took a look at your build......Brilliant!


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23151202
> 
> 
> SMX R.I.P.



Hmm yeah, the website is dead - http://www.smxscreen.com


----------



## quack724




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23160188
> 
> 
> Hmm yeah, the website is dead - http://www.smxscreen.com




I remember getting sticker shock when I received SMX quote . Glad I went with Seymour and that they seem to be doing well. Great product, quality, reasonable price, and Chris is outstanding in terms of customer service.


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quack724*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23160208
> 
> 
> I remember getting sticker shock when I received SMX quote . Glad I went with Seymour and that they seem to be doing well. Great product, quality, reasonable price, and Chris is outstanding in terms of customer service.



When I was researching screens, I first contacted SMX. It was like pulling teeth to get an answer or quote.


Chris was awesome! Great products and great service.


----------



## SKINSnCANES

I ordered screen samples from Chris, both 4k and XT. They came last night but my brewing meeting interferiored. Tonight Ill open um up and see how they look. Im excited to see the imagine on something other than drywall with primer on it!


----------



## marjen

chris - thanks. my smx material pre dates 2008. It was purchased very early on, even before I think SMX officially existed, it was when he was selling just the material. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Tnedator

Trying to spec my projector/screen for an upcoming build. I'm curious if anyone is using any of the 2013 JVC's (or previous generation) on a XD 132" 2.35 screen and if so, how is the brightness? I keep going back and forth about whether I'll get enough FTL or not.


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tnedator*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23166481
> 
> 
> Trying to spec my projector/screen for an upcoming build. I'm curious if anyone is using any of the 2013 JVC's (or previous generation) on a XD 132" 2.35 screen and if so, how is the brightness? I keep going back and forth about whether I'll get enough FTL or not.



I have an uncalibrated '13 X95R on an XD 140" screen in a 100% light controlled room.

I find the brightness to be fine for 2D - havent tried any 3D yet. This is on low lamp mode.

It's enough to make you squint when lens flares come up or the image goes from dark to light - so I figure thats bright enough.

I dont have any ftl measurements though.


From what I understand the X95 is slightly dimmer than the X75 so depending on what you go for...


I'm very happy with mine so far.


----------



## Crabalocker

I have the X-55 on a 153" (16x9) so I think that would be around 133" (length) 2.35:1 screen?? I find it plenty bright and is around 14_fl_ measured. The picture, IMO, is awesome! It doesn't look that great with ambient light though but I just use it to watch 2D movies in the dark. (my W7000 looks good with ambient light)


----------



## Tnedator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23166574
> 
> 
> I have the X-55 on a 153" (16x9) so I think that would be around 133" (length) 2.35:1 screen?? I find it plenty bright and is around 14_fl_ measured. The picture, IMO, is awesome! It doesn't look that great with ambient light though but I just use it to watch 2D movies in the dark. (my W7000 looks good with ambient light)





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeyD360*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23166568
> 
> 
> I have an uncalibrated '13 X95R on an XD 140" screen in a 100% light controlled room.
> 
> I find the brightness to be fine for 2D - havent tried any 3D yet. This is on low lamp mode.
> 
> It's enough to make you squint when lens flares come up or the image goes from dark to light - so I figure thats bright enough.
> 
> I dont have any ftl measurements though.
> 
> 
> From what I understand the X95 is slightly dimmer than the X75 so depending on what you go for...
> 
> 
> I'm very happy with mine so far.



Have either of you done even minimal calibration, using WOW, Digital Essentials, etc? Which picture mode do you use (stage, cinema, etc.)?


----------



## MikeyD360

No calibration at all yet. Run in THX mode with e-shift on film setting.


----------



## Crabalocker

I had mine professionally calibrated. He calibrated it with e-shift off but I since turned it on, film setting.


I also have CromaPure with the Display 3 pro meter for my owm calibration (W7000). I tried calibrating my JVC with it but prefer the THX calibrator calibration.


----------



## Tnedator

Thanks guys, that's exactly what I was hoping to hear. One last question, what kind of throw distances? I know I'll lose some brightness because I will be a fairly long throw.


----------



## Crabalocker

Because my screen is large, I have mine as close as I can, 15'. I definitely wouldn't want to give up any more brightness.


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tnedator*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23167943
> 
> 
> Thanks guys, that's exactly what I was hoping to hear. One last question, what kind of throw distances? I know I'll lose some brightness because I will be a fairly long throw.



My throw is a touch under 16' and also need to mention projecting through an m480sys Panamorph lens.


----------



## Tnedator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Crabalocker*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23168026
> 
> 
> Because my screen is large, I have mine as close as I can, 15'. I definitely wouldn't want to give up any more brightness.



Do you run in low or high lamp mode?


----------



## timhet

Bear in mind that with the JVCs, the less zoom, the more contrast ratio.


The ideal situation to have the highest CR, is low lamp, furtherest distance from screen with no zoom and minimum iris (-15). However, this will be too dim and impractical for most large screens. A setting in the middle will give you about 600-700 lumens.


Source: (in German but you can work out the tables):
http://www.cine4home.de/knowhow/Cine4Home_Edition_JVC_X-Serie_2013/JVC_X-Serie_C4HEd_1.htm


----------



## cobracalde

I sent two emails from Italy to Seymour AV.. but no answer... (retractable screen quote).

Do you know if there is any problem with Chris...?


Sorry for my poor english


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cobracalde*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23171174
> 
> 
> I sent two emails from Italy to Seymour AV.. but no answer... (retractable screen quote).
> 
> Do you know if there is any problem with Chris...?
> 
> 
> Sorry for my poor english



He's sometimes slow to respond but he'll get to you at some point. You could also go through one of the Seymour dealers which is what I did. Send a private get GetGray. Great service and no one knows video better.

http://www.avsforum.com/u/7464012/getgray


----------



## cobracalde

Many thanks Tony!

I'll wait a few more days an answer from Chris... then I can send a message to GetGray...

Obviously, I need a seller who used to ship internationally.


----------



## Crabalocker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tnedator*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23170821
> 
> 
> Do you run in low or high lamp mode?



I did when I first got the projector but the guy who did my calibration did it in high lamp mode with the iris a 0. I've since knocked the iris to -5 right now and I will raise it back to zero as the bulb ages.


I'm gonna' try my own calibration again. I get a bit better each time I calibrate. My W7000 looks really good right now.


----------



## adidino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cobracalde*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23171506
> 
> 
> Many thanks Tony!
> 
> I'll wait a few more days an answer from Chris... then I can send a message to GetGray...
> 
> Obviously, I need a seller who used to ship internationally.



I'm certain he will ship international. He's an authorized Seymour dealer so he would should where Seymour AV ships. I would at least PM him.


----------



## cobracalde




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adidino*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040#post_23172888
> 
> 
> I'm certain he will ship international. He's an authorized Seymour dealer so he would should where Seymour AV ships. I would at least PM him.



Ok! Thanks again...

Some years ago I purchased the Center Stage XD material for my DIY project... and I was very happy....


----------



## SKINSnCANES

Ill upload some pics tomorrow but here's w quick opinion. I put up the 2' by 2' samples of the XT next to the 4k.


Initial impressions were that the 4k was definitely a finer weave, but also a lot thinner. The 4k was harder to out up because if how much thinner it was. You could definitely see the 2x4s through it where it was touching but not anything, including a waving hand, behind it.


My girlfriend assumed the xt was the more expensive because it was thicker and whiter.


Whites on their own appeared better on the XT, most likely because Of the gain


However, once a movie was playing the 4k had clearly better color. Skin was so much more natural. Blacks were crisper and darker. Contrast better. The weave not noticeable at all.


The whites still looked better on the xt but again probably because of the gain. I think generically brighter looks better.


I'm assuming in an actual frame and stretched properly the 4k won't be noticeable that's it's thinner or wavy.


----------



## SKINSnCANES

Ill upload some pics tomorrow but here's w quick opinion. I put up the 2' by 2' samples of the XT next to the 4k.


Initial impressions were that the 4k was definitely a finer weave, but also a lot thinner. The 4k was harder to out up because if how much thinner it was. You could definitely see the 2x4s through it where it was touching but not anything, including a waving hand, behind it.


My girlfriend assumed the xt was the more expensive because it was thicker and whiter.


Whites on their own appeared better on the XT, most likely because Of the gain


However, once a movie was playing the 4k had clearly better color. Skin was so much more natural. Blacks were crisper and darker. Contrast better. The weave not noticeable at all.


The whites still looked better on the xt but again probably because of the gain. I think generically brighter looks better.


I'm assuming in an actual frame and stretched properly the 4k won't be noticeable that's it's thinner or wavy.


----------



## BobL

The 4K also has a black scrim that can go behind it if the surfaces behind the screen aren't black. You probably don't have the scrim with the sample.


----------



## ChopShop1

Ok, so I know I have asked this question before, but I'm getting closer to crunch time. My anticipated screen size is around 200", 2:37. I would like the little extra gain of the XD, but am worried about image quality on a screen that large. Any thoughts?? Thanks!


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChopShop1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23218845
> 
> 
> Ok, so I know I have asked this question before, but I'm getting closer to crunch time. My anticipated screen size is around 200", 2:37. I would like the little extra gain of the XD, but am worried about image quality on a screen that large. Any thoughts?? Thanks!


Picture quality on the XD is excellent. The only worry is that the texture will be visible up close. At a larger screen size you will probably be sitting farther away so this should not be an issue for you.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

I agree, at that size, the size of projected pixels and seating distance will be more of a factor than screen texture / weave holes. You also won't be able to tilt the material to combat moire, but I believe when the pixels are blown up that much, it won't matter.


----------



## ChopShop1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23219509
> 
> 
> I agree, at that size, the size of projected pixels and seating distance will be more of a factor than screen texture / weave holes. You also won't be able to tilt the material to combat moire, but I believe when the pixels are blown up that much, it won't matter.



Huh, I though I would still be able to...??


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChopShop1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23221778
> 
> 
> Huh, I though I would still be able to...??


I think what he is referring to is that there is a maximum height of the material so, once you reach a certain size, you no longer have the ability to tilt the material and use a single piece of fabric. However, this should not be an issue with your size screen at 1080p, but might be an issue at 4K.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChopShop1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23221778
> 
> 
> Huh, I though I would still be able to...??



The most you would get is about 5deg of tilt at that size


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23222152
> 
> 
> I think what he is referring to is that there is a maximum height of the material so, once you reach a certain size, you no longer have the ability to tilt the material and use a single piece of fabric. However, this should not be an issue with your size screen at 1080p, but might be an issue at 4K.



True. We wouldn't bother with a tilt at that size but there's nothing to worry about. As the size gets larger, the material doesn't need it. It'll have no problems at 4K either, as we have many 4K installations at this size and both larger and smaller.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## ChopShop1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23222799
> 
> 
> True. We wouldn't bother with a tilt at that size but there's nothing to worry about. As the size gets larger, the material doesn't need it. It'll have no problems at 4K either, as we have many 4K installations at this size and both larger and smaller.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Jedirun and Mopar for the answers.


Thanks Chris, I apprecaite the reassurance. What is your take on my earlier question...XD vs 4K at this size?? The reality is that if I purchase the DD HD5, as I plan to, I won't be replacing the PJ anytime soon for a 4k solution. I know you don't need 4k to appreciate the benefits of the 4k screen, just thinking out loud here.


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChopShop1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23222975
> 
> 
> Thanks Jedirun and Mopar for the answers.
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris, I apprecaite the reassurance. What is your take on my earlier question...XD vs 4K at this size?? The reality is that if I purchase the DD HD5, as I plan to, I won't be replacing the PJ anytime soon for a 4k solution. I know you don't need 4k to appreciate the benefits of the 4k screen, just thinking out loud here.


Obviously I am not Chris, but I would go with XD for the extra gain. At your size, the texture will not be a problem so I would not give up the gain for the smoother texture.


----------



## ChopShop1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23222993
> 
> 
> Obviously I am not Chris, but I would go with XD for the extra gain. At your size, the texture will not be a problem so I would not give up the gain for the smoother texture.



That's kind of where I'm at. I'm only wavering a bit because Mike Garett made a really compelling argument for the 4k when I spoke to him. He didn't sat the XD is bad or anything, just that the EN4K was that good. Gain will be a bit of an issue, but the HD5 has a claim of 5k lumens...from the sounds of the early viewers, it can be painfully bright on a bit more reasonable screen.


----------



## wingnut65

Can anyone with a ceiling-mounted Seymour Motorized Screen give me the measurements of the screen case ? And, how far down it extends from the ceiling? I'm looking at the H095 109" Center Stage Screen.


I am working with a woodworker to fabricate a custom entertainment center and I need to know dimensions to frame around. I've looked at their website and can't find anything with detailed dimensions. I have downloaded the installation manual, but there are no schematics in the book.


Thanks in advance


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wingnut65*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23242158
> 
> 
> Can anyone with a ceiling-mounted Seymour Motorized Screen give me the measurements of the screen case ? And, how far down it extends from the ceiling? I'm looking at the H095 109" Center Stage Screen.



Their retractable screens page has detailed dimensions at the bottom. Case height is 5.8".


----------



## wingnut65

Thanks, Scott. I've been on that page so much, but never saw the Dimensions section. That is what I needed!


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

Last weekend I got my Seymour XD screen hung.

I still need to trim it out, but what do you think?


Before

 



After


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffreyJonesBSME*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23245022
> 
> 
> Last weekend I got my Seymour XD screen hung.
> 
> I still need to trim it out, but what do you think?



I think it looks pretty trimmed out and terrific already.


The screen is OK too.


----------



## chriscmore

One of our AVS peers had a great feature on Electronic House. Using best practices from the industry's leading experts, this 15kW super theater of course uses a huge curved Seymour AV Center Stage XD screen.

http://www.electronichouse.com/article/superman_theater_delivers_15k_watts_of_sonic_superpower/ 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## BIGmouthinDC

Hey I put that screen together and my impression was the frame was great, and I was amazed that the grommets and positioning resulted in perfect tension. no ripples and not too tight that it would deform the curve. Great job Chris. Anyone considering a 12 ft wide curved screen in a 13 ft wide room you need to think about where you are going to put it together.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BIGmouthinDC*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23260939
> 
> 
> Hey I put that screen together and my impression was the frame was great, and I was amazed that the grommets and positioning resulted in perfect tension. no ripples and not too tight that it would deform the curve. Great job Chris. Anyone considering a 12 ft wide curved screen in a 13 ft wide room you need to think about where you are going to put it together.



I bet that was a little tough. Heck it is not the easiest to put together a 9' wide curved screen in a 11' wide room.


----------



## foraye




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BIGmouthinDC*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2040_60#post_23260939
> 
> 
> Hey I put that screen together and my impression was the frame was great, and I was amazed that the grommets and positioning resulted in perfect tension. no ripples and not too tight that it would deform the curve. Great job Chris. Anyone considering a 12 ft wide curved screen in a 13 ft wide room you need to think about where you are going to put it together.



Ha...I read here at AVS...this guy built a 10' wide laminate screen in the garage then discovered he couldn't get it into his (non-walkout) basement. So he posted "can i section it...and how to do it without being too noticeable" !!


I didn't bother to subscribe...


----------



## BIGmouthinDC

I don't think I posted this pic in the construction thread, we assembled the screen half on the riser and the other end supported by a box in front of the stage.

http://s23.photobucket.com/user/bigmouthindc/media/Fall Frenzy/DSCN1069_zps185d8e62.jpg.html  


The screen is nearly wall to wall

http://s23.photobucket.com/user/bigmouthindc/media/Fall Frenzy/DSCN1077_zps263fa534.jpg.html


----------



## kainers

Wow! Looks amazing!


----------



## Crabalocker

That looks stunning!


I hope, one day I get a chance to do a proper room like this!


----------



## autreym

That does look awesome...amazing work


----------



## luobue

think so,using a Prismasonic H1400 FE anamorphic lens to stretch my 2.37 movies.


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> I once read a rule of thumb on these Forums from another professional that screen width should be 80% of the room width or less.
> 
> I think this was simply for aesthetics



I went pretty much as big as I could and I love it. At the same time, the screen is pretty close (~1 foot) away from one wall, whereas it opens up on the other side to an open room. The issue is an audio one. When I watched The Bourne Legacy, I noticed that the sound on the side of the screen that led to an open room actually left the soundstage. That is, there was a part where there was typing and I could actually localize it to about two feet off to the right of the screen. Very weird, but very cool. However, on the side of the screen where the wall was pretty much "right there", you could tell that the audio was cut off, like you could really tell that the wall was hindering the enveloping sound. I added acoustical panels at the first order reflection and that helped a fair bit. But honestly, if I were to do it again, I would leave a few feet at least on opposite sides of the screen and just sit closer. Just my 0.02 and hope that is helpful to people. Bigger is great, but it can come with some sacrifices.


----------



## BroncoSport




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23267324
> 
> 
> I once read a rule of thumb on these Forums from another professional that screen width should be 80% of the room width or less.
> 
> ....



When I started my project I read this also.....and ignored it in the end. My screen wall is 148" wide and my 2.40:1 DYI Seymour screen is 124" wide and 51.5" tall. It consumes a great portion of my screen wall. This was the widest scope screen I could fit within the screen wall framing and still hold a little room on the sides for a future masking system.


Our seating locations are about 11' and 17'. I had intended on the front row to be "my row" but for what ever reason I like the rear row on the riser. If my room was any wider, my screen would have been wider as well. I love the "wow" factor of the screen that is darn near the width of my room (and so has everyone who has seen it).


----------



## MikeyD360

Agreed - my XD screen is almost 90% of my room width and I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

I got my projector last night and was able to do a little viewing on my XD screen for the first time. Impressed!


My screen wall is about 14 X 8 and my screen is about 1.5 feet from the right and left corners.

It's about 8 inches from the top and about 10 inches from the floor.


And it's GREAT!

Bigger is better!


----------



## RTK

Anyone ever upgrade an Elite EZFrame to Center Stage XD screen material? Just wondering how possible/challenging it would be to retrofit XD into the EZFrame which uses are rod system with sleeves to fasten the screen to the frame.


----------



## zheka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RTK*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2100#post_23331353
> 
> 
> Anyone ever upgrade an Elite EZFrame to Center Stage XD screen material? Just wondering how possible/challenging it would be to retrofit XD into the EZFrame which uses are rod system with sleeves to fasten the screen to the frame.



I did it with VA frame which I think is EZFrame knockoff.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1418460/reusing-visual-apex-frame-for-at-setup 

I'd suggest you get a sample of XD and give it a try just to make sure


----------



## doublewing11

Just recently purchased a 140 in wide Seymour-SE screen and am wondering about mounting depth...............design plan has image to be placed 25 inches in front of wall. Checking for mounting depth before framing screen wall.


Thanks.........


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *doublewing11*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2100#post_23332788
> 
> 
> Just recently purchased a 140 in wide Seymour-SE screen and am wondering about mounting depth...............design plan has image to be placed 25 inches in front of wall. Checking for mounting depth before framing screen wall.
> 
> 
> Thanks.........



I sent you an email. Let me know if it answers your questions.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RTK*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2100#post_23331353
> 
> 
> Anyone ever upgrade an Elite EZFrame to Center Stage XD screen material? Just wondering how possible/challenging it would be to retrofit XD into the EZFrame which uses are rod system with sleeves to fasten the screen to the frame.



Not that frame, but you might want to check out this thread. If you have any questions, let me know.







http://www.avsforum.com/t/1180610/screen-conversion-elunevision-frame-with-center-stage-xd-material


----------



## analogBalrog

I'm considering purchasing a Center Stage screen with the "Glacier White" non-AT 1.2 Gain screen material. I spoke with Jon @ SeymourAV but would like to hear some more feedback if anyone has it.


I'm considering getting a 103" 2.35 screen (Model #*F095*). I have the Sharp XCV-Z30000 projector with a throw distance of roughly 18 feet in a moderately light-controlled room.


I am also considering the Da-Lite Cinema Contour 103" 2.35 screen with their High Power material as I've heard good things about it, especially with 3D.


Additionally, I love the vertical masking panels on the Center Stage screen and it would fit perfectly in my application, whereas the Da-Lite does not have these panels.


My only hang up with the Seymour is the "Glacier White" screen material and whether or not it would suffice given my throw distance and modest ambient light situation. Last thing I want is hanging a screen that is too dim.


For math's sake, when not viewing 2.35 material, the 16:9 equivalent is an 82" screen. My seating distance can be variable; anywhere in between 16 feet and 13 feet, my choice (WAF applies).


Any advice is greatly appreciated! I'm leaning towards Seymour's Center Stage but I can't decide if the Glacier White 1.2 screen material will get the job done.


Thanks for reading!


----------



## chriscmore

Another great AVS build received some press in Electronic House. For those who haven't seen his project, Jonathan's build is very cool indeed:

http://www.electronichouse.com/article/crestron_programmer_adds_creative_tweaks_to_his_own_theater/ 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *analogBalrog*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2100#post_23373217
> 
> 
> I'm considering purchasing a Center Stage screen with the "Glacier White" non-AT 1.2 Gain screen material. I spoke with Jon @ SeymourAV but would like to hear some more feedback if anyone has it.
> 
> 
> I'm considering getting a 103" 2.35 screen (Model #*F095*). I have the Sharp XCV-Z30000 projector with a throw distance of roughly 18 feet in a moderately light-controlled room.
> 
> 
> I am also considering the Da-Lite Cinema Contour 103" 2.35 screen with their High Power material as I've heard good things about it, especially with 3D.
> 
> 
> Additionally, I love the vertical masking panels on the Center Stage screen and it would fit perfectly in my application, whereas the Da-Lite does not have these panels.
> 
> 
> My only hang up with the Seymour is the "Glacier White" screen material and whether or not it would suffice given my throw distance and modest ambient light situation. Last thing I want is hanging a screen that is too dim.
> 
> 
> For math's sake, when not viewing 2.35 material, the 16:9 equivalent is an 82" screen. My seating distance can be variable; anywhere in between 16 feet and 13 feet, my choice (WAF applies).
> 
> 
> Any advice is greatly appreciated! I'm leaning towards Seymour's Center Stage but I can't decide if the Glacier White 1.2 screen material will get the job done.
> 
> 
> Thanks for reading!



That screen size is relatively small so you should be able to get plenty of brightness. If you want a little more, consider the curved model as it will focus a little more light with the Glacier White non-At material. Curved with masking panels is the "ish" (had to look that one up after a relative used it - it means really good...)


You should be on the closest end of that seating range to get a cinematic feel. I'd scoot the seat up to about 11'.


As always, we're happy to send samples to make sure folks get the right screen for the job.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## yosh7

Has anyone here tried a curved 16:9 screen? The Seymour site states: " For that IMAX® feel, opt for a custom curved 16:9 screen" and I really like this idea. I am considering a 126" or 131" diagonal 16:9 screen. I would also probably get top and bottom masking panels for 2.35:1 movies. Any thoughts or experience with this? I will be using a Sony HW50ES with primary seats at 13.5 feet and second row at around 19 feet.


----------



## yosh7

And as a follow up question to my previous post, is it difficult to achieve uniform focus when using a curved screen? Especially since I will not be using an anamorphic lens and most viewing will be in 16:9.


----------



## MikeyD360

I have no problems with focus. You'll more likely notice the cinematographer's errors in focus more than any difference in perception between the outer side and center of the screen.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yosh7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2100#post_23409007
> 
> 
> And as a follow up question to my previous post, is it difficult to achieve uniform focus when using a curved screen? Especially since I will not be using an anamorphic lens and most viewing will be in 16:9.



The entire purpose of a curve screen is to fix problems with and anamorphic lense. If you aren't using one I see no good reason to have a curved screen, I can see where it would cause problems though.


----------



## BobL


Curved screens can also help with screen uniformity and some gain screens.  That whole angle of incidence = angle of reflection thing


----------



## yosh7

Can anyone on the thread comment on the Glacier White? I don't have my projector yet (HW50ES) but received samples from Seymour. I am quite impressed with the quality and thickness of the glacier white. I have Definitive bipolar speakers and like the idea of AT screen even though my speakers would be in front of the screen, but it is not a necessity at all. After getting samples of both the XD and glacier white, I just like the look and feel of the glacier white better. I would like to know how the glacier whtie compares to the Carada BW and Screen Innovations Solar HD. I am under the impression that the SI screen may have the best measured gain of all of them. Can anyone comment? I am getting the feeling the Glacier White may be too new to get good feedback. As I mentioned on another forum, I really like the option that Seymour offers with the masking panels. To me, this may offer as much benefit as a higher gain screen with respect to relative contrast. Thanks for any comments...


----------



## Mike Garrett

Gain wise increases from Glacier White to Carada Brilliant White to SI Solar 4K. If you would like to discuss matching your projector with a screen, give us a call.


----------



## spuj

Since screen excellence is now a part of seymour I figured I'd asked my question here since I couldn't find a screen excellence thread..


Is there any good frame build-thread for the screen excellence craftsman kit?


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BIGmouthinDC*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2070#post_23260939
> 
> 
> Hey I put that screen together and my impression was the frame was great, and I was amazed that the grommets and positioning resulted in perfect tension. no ripples and not too tight that it would deform the curve. Great job Chris. Anyone considering a 12 ft wide curved screen in a 13 ft wide room you need to think about where you are going to put it together.



Wow.. this is exactly the size of my room.. about 13 feet wide and i am thinking of doing a 12ft curved 16:9 screen.


Any ideas how to DIY the screen?


----------



## doublewing11

Another happy Seymour-SE customer................140" 2.37 4k screen.


Question though............I had the screen prepped for panels..............but..........where in the heck do you attach them?


----------



## NGiovas


I also mounted my 140" EN4K curved screen today.  This thing is top notch.  The panels are magnetic and just snap into place.  The magnets are very strong, so you won't have to worry about them falling or moving.  The panels are labeled left and right on the back.

 

 



 

 



 

 

Sorry, not the best pictures, but you can get an idea of what they look like.  With the screen wash lights on, they look lighter.  My theater isn't quite done yet, but with a movie playing those lights would be off and they look black.

 

I love everything about my screen so far.  The only thing I can find to pick on is the velvet on my masking panels is very wrinkly.  The wrinkles are really big.  I would have thought they would have put as much effort into the panels as the main screen frame.  Not a big deal.  It won't impact image quality at all, but I was just a bit surprised when I saw them.


----------



## martaxi

i know.using a Prismasonic H1400 FE anamorphic lens to stretch my 2.37 movies.thanks for your sharing


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spuj*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2100#post_23495080
> 
> 
> Since screen excellence is now a part of seymour I figured I'd asked my question here since I couldn't find a screen excellence thread..
> 
> 
> Is there any good frame build-thread for the screen excellence craftsman kit?



We don't sell the Craftsman kit here in the US. The reason is we got more aggressive with the pricing since they're now made here in the US and we cut out the import distributor. With smaller frame options we can nearly hit the craftsman price points while still using lovely aluminum. You can also ping AVS (Mike) here, as he has hands-on experience with them.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## dropzone7

Saving my pennies for a SeymourAV economy 2.35:1 screen. I have everything but the screen and I'm currently watching my projector on the linacoustic black surface of my screen wall. It's amazing what you can get used to! I'm surprised at how bright the image still is on that black material and of course the contrast is great. I should really be wowed by an actual white screen once I get it!


----------



## BroncoSport




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2100#post_23509673
> 
> 
> Saving my pennies for a SeymourAV economy 2.35:1 screen. I have everything but the screen and I'm currently watching my projector on the linacoustic black surface of my screen wall. It's amazing what you can get used to! I'm surprised at how bright the image still is on that black material and of course the contrast is great. I should really be wowed by an actual white screen once I get it!



Buy some maple boards and the Centerstage XD material and make your own screen! That will save the most money. That is exactly what I did and it worked great. You'll only need an uphostry stapler and basic woodworking tools. A heck of a lot cheaper than buying a pre-made screen. I think I have less than $500 in my 124" wide 2.40:1 screen and that is including the Protostar blackout material for the borders. Just an FYI.


I am a super satisfied Seymore customer. Great product and great service.


----------



## Skylinestar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BroncoSport*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2100#post_23514899
> 
> 
> Buy some maple boards and the Centerstage XD material and make your own screen! That will save the most money. That is exactly what I did and it worked great. You'll only need an uphostry stapler and basic woodworking tools. A heck of a lot cheaper than buying a pre-made screen. I think I have less than $500 in my 124" wide 2.40:1 screen and that is including the Protostar blackout material for the borders. Just an FYI.
> 
> 
> I am a super satisfied Seymore customer. Great product and great service.


You mean you just pull the screen material to the frame and stapled it?

Will it sag over time?


----------



## BroncoSport




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2100#post_23516552
> 
> 
> You mean you just pull the screen material to the frame and stapled it?
> 
> Will it sag over time?



Not a chance. The material is not nearly as "stretchy" as I thought it would be and I between stretching it as tight as my hands would take and stapling it staple next to staple (all the way around on the back of the frame)...it's pretty taught. I was a little concerned that the center portion of the frame would bow in when I stretched the Centerstage XD, so I split the screen width into 1/3's and installed verticle bracing at the 1/3 marks. I also (being overly cautious) didn't want to worry about the bracing boards touching the material and maybe causing a bulge, so I ran those boards through a thickness planner and took an 1/8" off of them so there would be 1/8" air gap from the braces to the back side of the Centerstage XD material. (the braces were flush on the rear of the frame). Painted the frame black before the material, as well. Don't know if that was needed...but again.. I dream up worse case .....


For the borders I used a long, straight 1x4 and milled a very slight bevel on the screen side and a rabbit joint right behind that bevel on the back side. Covered the frame boards with ProtoStar telescope flocking material (self adheasive and really BLACK) and attached these top and bottom borders using approrietely sized "cleat" boards (small scrap) screwed to the screen frame and then to the borders. Then the whole thing was placed in the hole framed out for this screen design and secured in place. 4 screws and I can take the screen out, but won't need to unless my SVS PC Ultra13 subwoffer dies.


I did not border the sides, because the plan is to build a motorized masking system and the side borders will be connected to that and not physically touching the screen.


There are a few pictures of my screen build in my thread (see signature for link)


----------



## chriscmore

For those of you that got the economy frame and haven't been impressed with the tightness of the frame cuts, we now include as standard a set of custom black foam joint gaskets. S-E used to do that with their frames before we tucked the velvet into the cut, so we simply cut the S-AV economy frame's profiles likewise. It's a thin black squishy foam that will eat up any gap or nonuniformities in the joint. They come as a set of six. Contact Jon, [email protected] or 515-268-3369, and give him the name the screen was ordered from so he can look up your order and mail you out a set.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## laugsbach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BroncoSport*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2100#post_23518070
> 
> 
> Not a chance.



+1


My going on 5 years old DIY 115" wide 2.35 screen is still looking great...


----------



## ransofeb

I was starting to think that Alzheimers had kicked in early.thank you


----------



## Brian1080P

I am really confused lol! Which Seymour website is the correct one?
www.seymourscreenexcellence.com 
www.seymourav.com 


Where can I find info on the centerstage XD Fixed scope screens?


----------



## laugsbach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brian1080P*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23519848
> 
> 
> Where can I find info on the centerstage XD Fixed scope screens?


 http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp


----------



## Expat444

Quick install question, does Seymour XD have a front and a back or can I install it either side facing the projector?


----------



## rx-8

There is no front or backside to the DX screen material. Carefully inspect both sides and mount it with the better side facing the projector.


-- Bill --


----------



## Expat444




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rx-8*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23524940
> 
> 
> There is no front or backside to the DX screen material. Carefully inspect both sides and mount it with the better side facing the projector.
> 
> 
> -- Bill --



Thanks!

The screen wall mods are takin longer than I thought but I'm hoping to build and mount the screen today and I just noticed that one side has some dirt on it.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Expat444*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23524849
> 
> 
> Quick install question, does Seymour XD have a front and a back or can I install it either side facing the projector?



We recommend the inside surface of the roll, as that's the side that's inspected for blemishes. Both sides spec the same, so if you happen to prefer the outer surface you can use it. The inside texture pattern is what's designed for use in retractables, so for your fixed frame screen it doesn't matter.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2100#post_23516552
> 
> 
> You mean you just pull the screen material to the frame and stapled it?
> 
> Will it sag over time?



The screen won't sag but if you are building a wood frame their is a good chance that the frame will shrink causing a sag in the screen. The larger the screen the bigger the chance, I had to restretch mine after about 6 months, been good since then.


----------



## BroncoSport

*woodworker over the last 25+ years


To prevent wood shrinkage or expansion, buy ONLY kiln dried wood (preferably something very tight grained and hard, like maple) and place it in the area of the theater room for several weeks to a month to equalize to the surrounding humidity level. Kiln dried wood can often come it at 6-8% moisture and unless your in the desert, your relative humdity will likely be double that ...easily. The boards will absorb the moisture in the air and equalize. After that process, there is little change of expansion/shrinkage.


In most cases, kiln dried wood has already sit in the local geographic location long enough to qualize, but there is a reason why some retailers wrap the nicer boards in plastic!


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BroncoSport*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23529561
> 
> 
> *woodworker over the last 25+ years
> 
> 
> To prevent wood shrinkage or expansion, buy ONLY kiln dried wood (preferably something very tight grained and hard, like maple) and place it in the area of the theater room for several weeks to a month to equalize to the surrounding humidity level. Kiln dried wood can often come it at 6-8% moisture and unless your in the desert, your relative humdity will likely be double that ...easily. The boards will absorb the moisture in the air and equalize. After that process, there is little change of expansion/shrinkage.
> 
> 
> In most cases, kiln dried wood has already sit in the local geographic location long enough to qualize, but there is a reason why some retailers wrap the nicer boards in plastic!



You are correct about equalizing, but you are in a more tempeered climate which helps. Here in Wisconsin our temp can swing 140 deg or more from some to winter and humidity from 0 to 100%. Depending on heating and cooling system in the house they can be alot of expantion and contraction of materials.


But yes you are exactly right that you need to climatize your wood before use, but I wouls also not make a frame that I didn't have some easy way to retension the screen.


Oh and I been selling wood for 25+ years too, so that is 50 years between us, ok I feel old now


----------



## Expat444

T


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23527281
> 
> 
> We recommend the inside surface of the roll, as that's the side that's inspected for blemishes. Both sides spec the same, so if you happen to prefer the outer surface you can use it. The inside texture pattern is what's designed for use in retractables, so for your fixed frame screen it doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


Thanks!

I chose the inside of the role and it looks great.


----------



## Reference_head

Has there been any new news on masking for the older drop down screens? (2.35 screen to mask to 1.78 so masking for the sides) I know the new ones have it but would love to get something i can put up and take down (like some kinda kit).


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Reference_head*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23547166
> 
> 
> Has there been any new news on masking for the older drop down screens? (2.35 screen to mask to 1.78 so masking for the sides) I know the new ones have it but would love to get something i can put up and take down (like some kinda kit).



No news yet. We're currently trying to get some new product going for CEDIA, but unfortunately it doesn't include a retrofit masking kit. I did get in some new smaller diameter rollers and motors to start playing with, though.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## 7channelfreak

Chris


How much does the masking affect the left and right speakers ? Spl? I think it's -2 through the screen and then how much when the panels are covering in 16.9?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *7channelfreak*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23549823
> 
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> How much does the masking affect the left and right speakers ? Spl? I think it's -2 through the screen and then how much when the panels are covering in 16.9?



About 0.3 to 0.5dB attenuation. The screen is about 1.5 average.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## 7channelfreak




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23552548
> 
> 
> About 0.3 to 0.5dB attenuation. The screen is about 1.5 average.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Thank you. Is this the same with the ENK 4k? I should have been more specific. I'll have about a 9 ft viewing distance.


----------



## 7channelfreak

Double post


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *7channelfreak*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23565798
> 
> 
> Thank you. Is this the same with the ENK 4k? I should have been more specific. I'll have about a 9 ft viewing distance.



The EN-4K has a little more overall attenuation of about 2dB because it shifts the frequency effect up past 30kHz. Because of that, the EN-4k is unique that in that it does not have any appreciable frequency or tonal effect. While reducing your front soundstage SPL by 2dB is more audible than the slight HF rolloff of the the XD, it's more correctable. Calibrate your channel levels and you've completely corrected for the screen. The XD is a step more conventional: a little less level compensation but a bit of HF rolloff. Most XD folks don't do any EQ unless their room errs on the side of sounding dark to begin with. Both materials are used to master audio at leading film production studios.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## coolgeek

Chris,


Would the 16:9 curved screen (say 120 inch wide) have the pincushion/barrel effect without a A-lens? (I am probably going to end up using the Sony hw50es)


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolgeek*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23567248
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Would the 16:9 curved screen (say 120 inch wide) have the pincushion/barrel effect without a A-lens? (I am probably going to end up using the Sony hw50es)



The reason of a curved screen is the A-Lens. If you are not going to use one get a flat screen.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23574050
> 
> 
> The reason of a curved screen is the A-Lens. If you are not going to use one get a flat screen.



That was probably the 'initial' reason to fix the A-Lens' issues..


But there's another reason for having Curved screen.. ie, more immerssive experience. IMax does it..


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolgeek*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23574055
> 
> 
> That was probably the 'initial' reason to fix the A-Lens' issues..
> 
> 
> But there's another reason for having Curved screen.. ie, more immerssive experience. IMax does it..



Ya that is a completely different thing. The screen darn near wraps around you, you are not going to come close to that feel with a home theater screen. Their only what, 6" of curve in a 120" screen, you won't even notice it when seated.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23574173
> 
> 
> Ya that is a completely different thing. The screen darn near wraps around you, you are not going to come close to that feel with a home theater screen. Their only what, 6" of curve in a 120" screen, you won't even notice it when seated.



Here's a quote from Imax:


> Quote:
> And when this image is projected onto an IMAX® screen, which isn’t simply larger; *but also curved*, taller for its width and positioned closer to the audience than ordinary screens, the result provides you with a full panoramic view that fills your peripheral vision more than any other cinematic experience. That’s why, when you watch an IMAX movie, it feels like it’s all around you.



Personally, I think directors should start making movies in the 16:9 ratio, because when you have a huge floor to ceiling/side to side screen, you'll then get closer to the Imax experience. The Scope aspect ratio is for Old Cinemas.. it gives you a panoramic view (side to side only), and with today's resolution getting higher, ie, 4k and beyond, we can sit closer and closer to the screens, which means you want to actually have the screen envelope you all around (both sideways and up/down)...


I am going to try the curve 16:9 version, maybe 11 feet wide, and then sit about 11 feet from it.. that will give me a total immerssive view.


BTW: The real Imax screen isn't all that curve either...


Here's a great video by Imax explaining their screen curve, and angles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXsRpy7yHfs&list=PLf_S55hJSbGGP3_6-MEr-HDfmrYHG62Wm&index=1


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

I have been to a couple of I-Max and have been not been impressed with either, I have a much better picture with my home theater.


I still don't see why you want a curved screen, you are going to have pincushin if not using a lense. The projectors are not designed to shot on a curve screen










Not to mension I don't know how well it will focus when the sides of the screen are closer then the center. Anyone ever try a curve screen with a regular projector?


----------



## coolgeek

However, I still need some answers to using 16:9 curved screens.


For instance, would the projected image go outside the borders of the screen (at the edge?). Do you need some special adjustments? (I am talking about while playing 16:9 aspect movies).


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolgeek*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23567248
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Would the 16:9 curved screen (say 120 inch wide) have the pincushion/barrel effect without a A-lens? (I am probably going to end up using the Sony hw50es)



No, we chose the radius of the curved screens to be just shallow enough to not cause appreciable barrel distortion if you're not using a lens. There are several folks using the curved frame without a lens that could chime in if they found the overscanning unreasonable, but from what we've heard it's plenty sweet.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23574798
> 
> 
> No, we chose the radius of the curved screens to be just shallow enough to not cause appreciable barrel distortion if you're not using a lens. There are several folks using the curved frame without a lens that could chime in if they found the overscanning unreasonable, but from what we've heard it's plenty sweet.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Chris, he is talking about a curved 16:9 screen, not shooting a 16:9 image onto a curved scope screen. If you have a large curved 16:9 screen, you will have barrel distortion. In other words the image will dip down in the middle bottom and hump up, middle top. Now just like people do with pincushion, you will be able to over shoot the image and lose the barrel distortion in the screen border. This is fine if the barrel distortion is not too great, but that depends a lot on screen size and throw distance. If you want to see about how much this will be. Decide on the amount of curve you are going to use. Lets say for example you decide you want the screen to have 8" of curve. Place a long 2x4 or other board so that it is 8" in front of your screen. Place the board so that the bottom of the image can be placed on the board. Position the image to give you the width that you want. Measure the distance from the floor to the image. Remove the board and let the image shine on the screen located 8" behind the board. Now measure from the bottom center of the image to the floor. The difference in the two measurements is the barrel distortion.


----------



## clausdk

Does anyone have any pictures or videos of the tab tensioned AT screen with the 16:9 masking? I've been unable to find good pictures of it. I am very tempted to add the masking feature for the 11 feet wide 2.37 screen I am planning. It's a premium for sure, but I am nervous I'll regret not adding it.


----------



## Brian B

I ordered one and am waiting for delivery, but probably won't have it up for a few weeks at least.


B.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23581168
> 
> 
> Chris, he is talking about a curved 16:9 screen, not shooting a 16:9 image onto a curved scope screen. If you have a large curved 16:9 screen, you will have barrel distortion. In other words the image will dip down in the middle bottom and hump up, middle top. Now just like people do with pincushion, you will be able to over shoot the image and lose the barrel distortion in the screen border. This is fine if the barrel distortion is not too great, but that depends a lot on screen size and throw distance. If you want to see about how much this will be. Decide on the amount of curve you are going to use. Lets say for example you decide you want the screen to have 8" of curve. Place a long 2x4 or other board so that it is 8" in front of your screen. Place the board so that the bottom of the image can be placed on the board. Position the image to give you the width that you want. Measure the distance from the floor to the image. Remove the board and let the image shine on the screen located 8" behind the board. Now measure from the bottom center of the image to the floor. The difference in the two measurements is the barrel distortion.



For a curved, 120" wide screen there would be 4.6" of depth to the curvature. He can replicate this using your technique and 4.6" of depth difference to measure the barrel distortion.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23582608
> 
> 
> For a curved, 120" wide screen there would be 4.6" of depth to the curvature. He can replicate this using your technique and 4.6" of depth difference to measure the barrel distortion.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Hi Chris,


I am really leaning towards getting either 10 feet wide/11 feet wide curved 16:9 screen. I am not very handy with 'measuring' and all.. i don't even have my projector yet.


Do you have experience or any of your clients have any experience with such a screen? Would i be fine with it?


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

It also would not be possible to shoot on a curved screen without an A lens, and have perfect/uniform focus across the screen - to what degree, and how objectionable it would be, you'd have to test of course. If it was me, I definitely would never do a curved screen without a lens.


----------



## karbabay

will not need to mask the top. I used the 63 inch material for the screen section.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23585370
> 
> 
> It also would not be possible to shoot on a curved screen without an A lens, and have perfect/uniform focus across the screen - to what degree, and how objectionable it would be, you'd have to test of course. If it was me, I definitely would never do a curved screen without a lens.



Could the A-Lens be used for 16:9 movies?


----------



## bighvy76

So can u see the weave of the center stage xd at 11 ft. I have a benq 1070 in a small room 10x14 I was gonna place 3 front speakers behind the 120" screen. The 120" will pretty much fill 10ft wall end to end. U was gonna hang screen from ceiling 18" infront of speaker wall.


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23585573
> 
> 
> So can u see the weave of the center stage xd at 11 ft. I have a benq 1070 in a small room 10x14 I was gonna place 3 front speakers behind the 120" screen. The 120" will pretty much fill 10ft wall end to end. U was gonna hang screen from ceiling 18" infront of speaker wall.



I don't think 11' viewing distance will be a problem. I have a sample of the XD material and my first row of seating is going to be about 10' away from a 130" wide screen. Just judging by the small sample of course but I could not see the weave until I was about 6 or 7 feet away and that was on a solid white test pattern. When viewing a movie it is probably harder to see than that. I think with a DLP projector you are more likely to see pixel structure than you are the weave in the material.


----------



## BroncoSport

My front row eyes are about 10 1/2' from the 124" wide screen and I can't make out the weave at that distance when the projector is on, until I get to about 7-8 feet (straining to see it). With no picture and just the room lighting I can make out the weave at about 8-9 feet but it is a case of looking for it.


----------



## Expat444




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23585617
> 
> 
> I don't think 11' viewing distance will be a problem. I have a sample of the XD material and my first row of seating is going to be about 10' away from a 130" wide screen. Just judging by the small sample of course but I could not see the weave until I was about 6 or 7 feet away and that was on a solid white test pattern. When viewing a movie it is probably harder to see than that. I think with a DLP projector you are more likely to see pixel structure than you are the weave in the material.


I'm 13.5' and the kids are 10.5' from a 150" diagonal Seymour XD and it looks great.


----------



## jmoakk

My screen is scheduled for delivery on Saturday. I can wait! I just returned a 120in elite screen that I wasn't happy with. Hopefully this one is a keeper!


----------



## bighvy76

When did u order it?


----------



## jmoakk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23587163
> 
> 
> When did u order it?



I ordered it on 7/21



Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## jmoakk

I was able to get my screen up today. One word... Awesome! I'll try to post more details later.

Thanks for the awesome screen Chris!


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Expat444*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23586961
> 
> 
> I'm 13.5' and the kids are 10.5' from a 150" diagonal Seymour XD and it looks great.



Assuming your screen is 10.5 feet wide, the first row is exactly the width of your screen. Is that watchable or too near?


----------



## Expat444




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolgeek*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23593341
> 
> 
> Assuming your screen is 10.5 feet wide, the first row is exactly the width of your screen. Is that watchable or too near?


Personally I'd sit even closer as I like as immersive experience as possible.


----------



## FoeHammer865




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Expat444*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23593538
> 
> 
> Personally I'd sit even closer as I like as immersive experience as possible.



EXACTLY! What's the point in going with a bigger screen if you just sit farther away?


----------



## deromax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoeHammer865*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23629098
> 
> 
> EXACTLY! What's the point in going with a bigger screen if you just sit farther away?



To accomodate a larger audience, to widen the soundstage, to augment the big screen experience. You could sit 12 inches away from a laptop screen, the image would be immersive but not cinema-like...


----------



## magicj1

Anyone using a Seymour electric AT tab tensioned Dual roller masking screen?


I am just about ready to push the button on a electric AT tab tensioned, so I'm trying to work out if the extra outlay would be worth the cost?


Thanks.


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *magicj1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23639052
> 
> 
> Anyone using a Seymour electric AT tab tensioned Dual roller masking screen?
> 
> 
> I am just about ready to push the button on a electric AT tab tensioned, so I'm trying to work out if the extra outlay would be worth the cost?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



I just received my dual-roller screen. Haven't gotten it up on the ceiling yet so can't really comment on how well it works. I can tell you that the installation looks to be much more difficult than the single-roller model. My 100" wide screen weighs 130 lbs and I'm going to have to hold it up in place while I bolt it in. I'm probably going to have to rent a hoist, but first I'm headed to the lumber yard to buy some beams to span between the joists.


----------



## magicj1

Sounds heavy!!..... To be fare it does say on the Seymour site installation is a 3 man job for these.


Anyway, cheers ScottJ, please keep me posted with your progress..


----------



## hunrusky

With the quality and price of his electric screens, Chris has really hit a home run!


----------



## bighvy76

So does the center stage xd material have a black backing or am I gonna have light shoot thru it and reflect back onto screen from behind. I'm hanging a fixed 120" from the ceiling 13" from the wall. The wall is dark maroon paint. Doesn't the xd material reflect back 100% . Could hang black burlap material on the back wall if I need to?


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23660846
> 
> 
> So does the center stage xd material have a black backing or am I gonna have light shoot thru it and reflect back onto screen from behind. I'm hanging a fixed 120" from the ceiling 13" from the wall. The wall is dark maroon paint. Doesn't the xd material reflect back 100% . Could hang black burlap material on the back wall if I need to?



The screen material is the same on both sides. You will need to have a black non-reflective material behind it. I have a plywood wall for mine, with areas cut out for the speakers. When I'm on the other side of the wall and the projector is on, I can see a reverse of the projection through the speakers cutouts.


I used flat black paint behind mine and it seems to work great.


----------



## bighvy76

Thanks. I have yards of black burlap material I was gonna do sound absorbing boxes with that I decried not to do. I wonder if I can just. Attach to the wall behind the screen


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23660893
> 
> 
> Thanks. I have yards of black burlap material I was gonna do sound absorbing boxes with that I decried not to do. I wonder if I can just. Attach to the wall behind the screen




Yes, the Black Burlap would definitely help!


Even without the Black Burlap as long as it is relatively dark back behind the screen you might be OK. I would try without the burlap first and only use it if you need to!


To step it up a bit and really do it right, if you built a false wall to mount the screen on with black acoustically transparent material surrounding the screen the space behind the screen would certainly be dark and then you would really get that "screen floating in space effect"... and that would be really nice!



...Glenn


----------



## Skylinestar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hunrusky*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23643406
> 
> 
> With the quality and price of his electric screens, Chris has really hit a home run!


Is there any chance that the screen will sag over time? I've read too many issues with Elite tab tensioned screens that sag after 2 years.


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/1950#post_22964426
> 
> 
> For this round of testing and comparison purposes:
> 
> 
> Enlightor-4K: unbenchmarked gain: 0.77, color temp: 6452, R: 101.2%, G: 99.0%, B: 99.8%
> 
> XD: unbenchmarked gain: 1.00, color temp: 6596, R: 98.9%, G: 100.0%, B: 101.1%
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


Your web site has the XD listed as 1.2 gain?


----------



## sCiEnt

Hi, I have a problem and could use some help.


Will anyone be able to get me a picture of how the black velvet border is attached to the white screen material on their Seymour screen?


I built my retractable screen using the CenterStage material and I sewed my velvet border on top of the white screen material. Because of the added thickness of the velvet border on the edges the screen has wrinkles when its rolled up and it does not go away after its been extended. I have attached a picture so you can see problem.


Thanks!


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23673506
> 
> 
> Your web site has the XD listed as 1.2 gain?



Benchmarked, yes. The XD is the highest gain woven screen available from anywhere, in comparison from others' ratings from 1.1 to 1.3.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23674859
> 
> 
> Benchmarked, yes. The XD is the highest gain woven screen available from anywhere, in comparison from others' ratings from 1.1 to 1.3.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


what is the differance between benchmarked and not


----------



## Skylinestar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23668582
> 
> 
> Is there any chance that the screen will sag over time? I've read too many issues with Elite tab tensioned screens that sag after 2 years.


Any long time users can comment on this?


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23680211
> 
> 
> Any long time users can comment on this?



I don't have the Seymour AV frame, but I have the Centerstage XD material and after trial and error with some other methods of attaching and tensioning the screen, I ended up using a grommet and o-ring method similar to what you get when buying a complete screen from the website. By the way, Chris was very helpful with advice on constructing my screen. The bottom line is, I have had the screen for over 3 years and there is not a bit of sag in it. With the stronger frame material that comes with the screen and the professional construction, I would think that the real thing will be even sturdier than my DIY version. You will have no issues.


----------



## Skylinestar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23680222
> 
> 
> I don't have the Seymour AV frame, but I have the Centerstage XD material and after trial and error with some other methods of attaching and tensioning the screen, I ended up using a grommet and o-ring method similar to what you get when buying a complete screen from the website. By the way, Chris was very helpful with advice on constructing my screen. The bottom line is, I have had the screen for over 3 years and there is not a bit of sag in it. With the stronger frame material that comes with the screen and the professional construction, I would think that the real thing will be even sturdier than my DIY version. You will have no issues.


Thanks...but I'm referring to the motorized retractable screen.


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

I wanted to add my 2 cents. I haven't really seen anyone talk about a DIY option to installing their XD screen, like I did.



I decided to make a plywood wall for my Seymour XD screen. I had my family help "stretch" the screen while I stapled it to the frame (hundreds of staples).

There is not much stretch to this material. It installed very easily and was easy to get the waves out. It looks very tight now.

I decided to have a plywood backing to aid in support in case anyone fell into the screen.



 


 




After I trim out the outside of the screen, it will measure about 155 inches diagonal.

Be sure and paint the area behind the screen with flat black paint. When I look through the speaker cutouts, I can see an almost perfect, reverse picture. A light colored background would definitely reflect back onto the screen.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffreyJonesBSME*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23681058
> 
> 
> I wanted to add my 2 cents. I haven't really seen anyone talk about a DIY option to installing their XD screen, like I did.
> 
> 
> 
> I decided to make a plywood wall for my Seymour XD screen. I had my family help "stretch" the screen while I stapled it to the frame (hundreds of staples).
> 
> There is not much stretch to this material. It installed very easily and was easy to get the waves out. It looks very tight now.
> 
> I decided to have a plywood backing to aid in support in case anyone fell into the screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I trim out the outside of the screen, it will measure about 155 inches diagonal.
> 
> Be sure and paint the area behind the screen with flat black paint. When I look through the speaker cutouts, I can see an almost perfect, reverse picture. A light colored background would definitely reflect back onto the screen.



You may want to put some absorption on that baffle wall, as it might tighten up transients and improve imaging. Also, make sure everything is black behind the screen.


Looks great!

cheers,

chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23680968
> 
> 
> Thanks...but I'm referring to the motorized retractable screen.



Between the fiberglass reinforced fibers used in all the material layers and the tab tensioning, I'm not aware of anyone having sag over time. Once you get it all stabilized, it stays there.


Comparisons to the imported screen problems aren't very valid since they cheap out on everything. We have twice the roller diameter, three times the tension, and use much more expensive motors. It would be more apt to compare our materials and construction techniques to Screen Research, Vutec, etc, although we have several patented features that they don't. No one that I know of uses sewing machines to build their retractables.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Another advantage of using the grommet and o-ring technique on either your DIY or manufactured Center Stage screen is that you can steam it. We had a screen that was dented from a box that fell on the screen and sat for a while, and the customer waited a few days for most of the material to rebound and then simply steamed out the last bits. A nice relaxing steam bath works great with the dynamic tensioning.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23679374
> 
> 
> Let me see if I can guess:
> 
> Many consumers scrutinize specs (ergo your post) and use these manufacturer's numbers as if they were gospel to influence purchasing decisions.
> 
> There are many ways to measure and represent performance numbers. A reputable manufacturer with integrity (such as Seymour) will test and provide specs using standardized methods.
> 
> Unfortunately they must compete in a market with other's less scrupulous. As a result the XD material is given two gain values; 1.0 as per standard methods, and 1.2 benchmarked based on it's gain reletive to other screens on the market.
> 
> 
> I know Seymour provides screen samples which you can use to conduct your own real world comparisons so all these specs won't matter one iota.



Right on. A gain specification serves two purposes. One is if you are wanting to calculate FtL of brightness from your image. The other is if you are trying to compare the difference in brightness from one material to the next. Ideally, such a specifation would be the same and we could all calculate and compare easily. However, in my opinion they have become so divergant that a separate number is needed for each purpose.


When I get back to the office I'll pull out a few test examples and ask what you would do.


Cheers,

chris


----------



## sCiEnt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sCiEnt*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23674440
> 
> 
> Hi, I have a problem and could use some help.
> 
> 
> Will anyone be able to get me a picture of how the black velvet border is attached to the white screen material on their Seymour screen?
> 
> 
> I built my retractable screen using the CenterStage material and I sewed my velvet border on top of the white screen material. Because of the added thickness of the velvet border on the edges the screen has wrinkles when its rolled up and it does not go away after its been extended. I have attached a picture so you can see problem.
> 
> 
> Thanks!



Hey Folks, anybody feel like helping me out here? I would really appreciate it. It's been driving me batty. The only solution I can think of right now is to remove the side borders and just paint those on.


----------



## spuj

If I buy the diy fabric and together with Millibell black backing will the black backing come attached to the center stage xd fabric or separated?


Will it work to use the grommets and o-rings mounting technique on both if they are separated?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sCiEnt*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23683305
> 
> 
> Hey Folks, anybody feel like helping me out here? I would really appreciate it. It's been driving me batty. The only solution I can think of right now is to remove the side borders and just paint those on.



Part of our patent is joining the velvet along the edge of the screen material, as you can't simply attach layers on top of each other and roll them up flatly. If you want to use side velvet, then do an edge-to-edge joint and make sure the thickness of the screen layer(s) is the same as the rolled thickness of the velvet. Otherwise, I would do a masked painted border. Larger rollers help, too, as they reduce the number of wraps and difference in roll-up diameter for any layers you have.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spuj*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23685835
> 
> 
> If I buy the diy fabric and together with Millibell black backing will the black backing come attached to the center stage xd fabric or separated?
> 
> 
> Will it work to use the grommets and o-rings mounting technique on both if they are separated?



They will be separate layers. You can simply loop the o-rings through the holes in both the XD and the black backing. We recommend using every-other hole for the black backing so that the majority of the tension remains on the XD.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## nickbuol

I talked a guy at work into buying a Seymour XD screen after the great success I've had with mine. I went full DIY about 15 months ago. The material was in low supply back then. So he went with Jamestown for his frame and ordered the Seymour XD material through them. That was back on May 17 and still no screen. Jamestown is claiming that it is a shortage of XD material. Is that true? He ordered it when his new construction house was just being started. He moved in a week ago... Hopefully something will get sorted out soon.


----------



## bighvy76

I ordered mine thru Jamestown on eBay I hope to god it doesn't take 3 months like i keep hearing. It is the last piece to my first theater build


----------



## sCiEnt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23686020
> 
> 
> Part of our patent is joining the velvet along the edge of the screen material, as you can't simply attach layers on top of each other and roll them up flatly. If you want to use side velvet, then do an edge-to-edge joint and make sure the thickness of the screen layer(s) is the same as the rolled thickness of the velvet. Otherwise, I would do a masked painted border. Larger rollers help, too, as they reduce the number of wraps and difference in roll-up diameter for any layers you have.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris. I figured that I would have to do an edge to edge join to prevent material build up at that point and I am sure you know better than everyone that is not an easy task. I also have my tabs for tension hidden behind the borders so I will have to figure out what to do with them. Would you mind or anyone else mind snapping a few pictures of the front and back of the join? I would like to attempt it but if its too complex or difficult I am just going to remove my current border and paint them on. Any ideas where I can get the velvet that is about the same thickness as the Centerstage? Mine is a little thicker. Also any suggestions for the border?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nickbuol*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23691365
> 
> 
> I talked a guy at work into buying a Seymour XD screen after the great success I've had with mine. I went full DIY about 15 months ago. The material was in low supply back then. So he went with Jamestown for his frame and ordered the Seymour XD material through them. That was back on May 17 and still no screen. Jamestown is claiming that it is a shortage of XD material. Is that true? He ordered it when his new construction house was just being started. He moved in a week ago... Hopefully something will get sorted out soon.



We have had some XD supply delays this summer (we had four batches made before it could meet our specifications) and when so, the site is updated. For about the past month we've been well stocked and everything has tested great. I'm not sure where in his process he needs the material. I would assume he could build everything else and then simply add the XD roll in the shipping box at the end, but he probably takes it out and notches it. I think every bulk material order has been fulfilled from a day to a week after placed. I want to support him, as I think even those in the import-screen budget level deserve a better performance product, but from following his thread his lead times are too long. I suspect he's overbooked for capacity and either not willing or able to increase his production capacity to meet the needs. I can understand being conservative these days - we've had our backlogs get unreasonable too - but watching things for the past year seems to point to either him raising prices a bit and/or expanding the shop. I still hope he comes through for your friend, though.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23679374
> 
> 
> Let me see if I can guess:
> 
> Many consumers scrutinize specs (ergo your post) and use these manufacturer's numbers as if they were gospel to influence purchasing decisions.
> 
> There are many ways to measure and represent performance numbers. A reputable manufacturer with integrity (such as Seymour) will test and provide specs using standardized methods.
> 
> Unfortunately they must compete in a market with other's less scrupulous. As a result the XD material is given two gain values; 1.0 as per standard methods, and 1.2 benchmarked based on it's gain reletive to other screens on the market.
> 
> 
> I know Seymour provides screen samples which you can use to conduct your own real world comparisons so all these specs won't matter one iota.



In follow up to my previous post, here are some rated gains of various woven screens and the percentage brighter that XD measures. For comparative purposes I believe we should have benchmarked gain specifications when the segment's ratings have become too wacked out.


(Now defunct) SMX-HD, rated 1.16, XD measures +5% brighter

SI Gamma Maestro HD, rated 1.1, XD measures +13% brighter


The imported screens are unsurprisingly the worst offenders:

Elite 1080, rated 1.0, XD measures +15% brighter

SnapAV Dragonfly AcoustiWeave, rated 1.3 (really, have they ever even seen a 1.3 screen?), XD measures +18% brighter

Elunevision Audioweave, rated 1.15 although it should be 0.80, XD measures +23% brighter

and the king of crazy, Elite A4K, rated 1.1 although it should be 0.69, XD measures +46% brighter


If we just took their ratings and comparative measurements we could rate the XD anywhere from 1.15 to 1.60, with the average being 1.36. This segment has become degraded with the influx of imported product, like car audio. Let me know if you have suggestions as to how better to frame what should be a simple product specification.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23679374
> 
> 
> Many consumers scrutinize specs (ergo your post) and use these manufacturer's numbers as if they were gospel to influence purchasing decisions.


Not it at all I just want to educate myself.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23682372
> 
> 
> Right on. A gain specification serves two purposes. One is if you want to calculate FtL of brightness from your image. The other is if you are trying to compare the difference in brightness from one material to the next. Ideally, such a specification would be the same and we could all calculate and compare easily. However, in my opinion they have become so divergent that a separate number is needed for each purpose.


So what value do I need to put into Projector Central calculator pro? With the Pana AE-8000 with a gain of 1.0 and 125” wide 2.40:1 screen 17 foot throw is just barely in the green with 13 fL. At 1.3 gain has 15 fl


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23693009
> 
> 
> For comparative purposes I believe we should have benchmarked gain specifications when the segment's ratings have become too wacked out.
> 
> If we just took their ratings and comparative measurements we could rate the XD anywhere from 1.15 to 1.60, with the average being 1.36. This segment has become degraded with the influx of imported product, like car audio. Let me know if you have suggestions as to how better to frame what should be a simple product specification.


What should I use in the Projector Central calculator?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23696381
> 
> 
> Not it at all I just want to educate myself.
> 
> So what value do I need to put into Projector Central calculator pro? With the Pana AE-8000 with a gain of 1.0 and 125” wide 2.40:1 screen 17 foot throw is just barely in the green with 13 fL. At 1.3 gain has 15 fl
> 
> What should I use in the Projector Central calculator?



For FtL calculations, the first of the two purposes of a gain specification, you should use unbenchmarked values.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## smuggymba

I have a 12ft room and would like the biggest possible zero edge screen (hopefully with back LED lights). I just read on the Seymour website that there is a frame-less screen available. I'm leaning towards the AT screen since I can go bigger on the screen size.


How big of a screen size can a 12 ft room handle? Curved or straight screen?


Does Seymour offer zero edge screen; If yes, links from the website/pics? Which one of these is zero edge - http://www.seymourav.com/installsfixed.asp 


Does seymour offer back LED lighting?


I'm reading about this new Seymour 4K material but there is no mention of it the website, where can I get more info about it?


Can users also post some speaker brands that they use behind the AT screens? Thanks.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I wouldn't recommend lighting behind a projection screen as it can have adverse effects on the contrast and what your eyes do (look up bias lighting). It's fine for direct view tv, but not for projection. Unless you want to have the lights on for effect before and after watching a movie? In which case it can look pretty cool










Frameless is easy - you build a frame from wood to the desired size, wrap it in material (stretch and staple) and hang it on the wall. The only drawback with AT is the wood may be visible so make sure everything behind is black.


Gary


----------



## smuggymba

Thanks DavidK442 for all the info. I didn't know Seymour had a separate website for the 4K screen. I think they should have it on the same website


By 12ft, I mean my room is 12 ft wide, how much space do I have to keep on the side for the frame + spacing. I would like to squeeze in the max screen size (plus frame and any tolerance as required.)


I don't plan to DIY, I would like to order it from Seymour itself so I can just install. Only if I could find someone who can build a baffle wall in Houston, TX My room is 22 ft long and assuming we use up 2 ft for the baffle wall, I have plenty of space since I just one row of seating - one big comfy sectional.


----------



## smuggymba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23702842
> 
> 
> I wouldn't recommend lighting behind a projection screen as it can have adverse effects on the contrast and what your eyes do (look up bias lighting). It's fine for direct view tv, but not for projection. Unless you want to have the lights on for effect before and after watching a movie? In which case it can look pretty cool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frameless is easy - you build a frame from wood to the desired size, wrap it in material (stretch and staple) and hang it on the wall. The only drawback with AT is the wood may be visible so make sure everything behind is black.
> 
> 
> Gary



Gary - People from SI say that LED improves the contrast and provides a better picture (on the zero edge black diamond). Is this different for an AT screen?


----------



## GWCR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23704324
> 
> 
> Thanks DavidK442 for all the info. I didn't know Seymour had a separate website for the 4K screen. I think they should have it on the same website
> 
> 
> By 12ft, I mean my room is 12 ft wide, how much space do I have to keep on the side for the frame + spacing. I would like to squeeze in the max screen size (plus frame and any tolerance as required.)
> 
> 
> I don't plan to DIY, I would like to order it from Seymour itself so I can just install. Only if I could find someone who can build a baffle wall in Houston, TX My room is 22 ft long and assuming we use up 2 ft for the baffle wall, I have plenty of space since I just one row of seating - one big comfy sectional.


Looks like your room dimensions will be similar to mine. I have a 10' wide 2.35 screen, and not sure I would want to go wider. Just over 1' left on either side of the screen. If you go too close to the wall, you may have more reflection than you want. A better question is, what will your seating distance be? Once you have that figured out, you can borrow a projector and shoot an image on the wall to see what size you like best. Then order the screen size accordingly.


----------



## smuggymba

My room is 22ft long. Assuming we use up 2 ft for the false wall, I'm left with 20 ft. I'll just have one big sectional so the seating distance will be 17-18 ft from the screen.


I'd like to go as big as possible on the screen size (the main reason for investing in a baffle wall so I can hide the speakers in the back and use the extra space on the sides to go for a bigger screen). How much would a 4K Seymour excellence set me back for a 140 inch diagonal.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23704324
> 
> 
> Thanks DavidK442 for all the info. I didn't know Seymour had a separate website for the 4K screen. I think they should have it on the same website
> 
> 
> By 12ft, I mean my room is 12 ft wide, how much space do I have to keep on the side for the frame + spacing. I would like to squeeze in the max screen size (plus frame and any tolerance as required.)
> 
> 
> I don't plan to DIY, I would like to order it from Seymour itself so I can just install. Only if I could find someone who can build a baffle wall in Houston, TX My room is 22 ft long and assuming we use up 2 ft for the baffle wall, I have plenty of space since I just one row of seating - one big comfy sectional.



We can do a (literally) zero edge / frameless version by modifying the screen material and posts so the screen can wrap around the front of the aluminum frame.


We don't have an LED option kit yet for the Seymour AV line. The S-SE Reference Frame has a bezel built in for LED strips, but they're a very wide border so I'd assume you wouldn't want that. We have a new SLIM (0.5" wide) profile we're showing at CEDIA, but I'll need to make modifications to the extrusion when we bring it here to the US to accommodate LEDs. Likely winter before we see those. In the meanwhile, it seems a frameless screen with the LED kit of your choosing would be the way to go.


LED backlighting can work with ambient light screens because they're typically smaller and reject the light you're polluting into the room. Those screens are essentially oversized TVs, and reducing the point-source light eye strain is helpful.


For AT screens, which are usually much larger and truly built for cinema, their whiteness won't much like the light pollution unless it's very minor and carefully kept off screen. For example, a light colored screen wall, washed in some light, with black side walls ceiling and floor.


For pricing on a S-SE Enlightor-4K screen, either click on the website map to see the local rep, contact us for the local dealer in your area, or ping everyone's friends here at AV Science.


DavidK: Great answers.







Wished you worked here...


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## smuggymba

Chris - Thanks a lot for your reply.


I really wish someone can help/guide me with some info of an installer in Houston who knows a few things about baffles walls.


----------



## Nyal Mellor

Here's an educational blog article I wrote about baffle wall design .


We've designed and built quite a few baffle walls now. And, without saying, we only use Seymour screens!


Though we are based in the SF Bay Area we've designed baffle walls for clients or their contractors to build in other parts of the US. There is a baffle wall installed in our demo theater in Fairfax, Marin County if anyone wants to take a look.


There is actually a Procella Audio powered theater we've designed in Houston that included a baffle wall (and Seymour AV screen) that the client built with some help from family members.


----------



## gtwizard

hello chris can a epson 5020 light up a 120 wide 137 diag (1.78) retractable screen


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

My 6020 lights up my 155 inch XD just fine and I keep mine on ECO mode.


----------



## gtwizard




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffreyJonesBSME*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23709998
> 
> 
> My 6020 lights up my 155 inch XD just fine and I keep mine on ECO mode.


thanks for the info


----------



## magicj1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2160#post_23639260
> 
> 
> I just received my dual-roller screen. Haven't gotten it up on the ceiling yet so can't really comment on how well it works. I can tell you that the installation looks to be much more difficult than the single-roller model. My 100" wide screen weighs 130 lbs and I'm going to have to hold it up in place while I bolt it in. I'm probably going to have to rent a hoist, but first I'm headed to the lumber yard to buy some beams to span between the joists.



Any further updates ScottJ?


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *magicj1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23712545
> 
> 
> Any further updates ScottJ?



My screen is sitting on a drywall lift and if all goes well, should be up on the ceiling by this afternoon. Then I'll finally get to hook it up and run it down to see the screen for the first time!


----------



## Jdgate

So I finally picked up my Seymour screen. I went with a 105 wide premier frame glacier white screen. My question is, what are some recommendations for how high to mount the screen. I have 2 rows of seats with the back row on a 12 inch riser, ceiling is 8'8". First row viewing distance is a little over 11 foot with second row about 5 foot behind that. I am using an Epson 5020ub (has lens shift capability). I am using Rowone Front Row seats if that makes any difference.


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jdgate*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23716323
> 
> 
> My question is, what are some recommendations for how high to mount the screen.




It's simple...


Just use this formula....


 




But really,

My theater is similar to yours. Mine is 155 inches diagonal and I have mine about 8 inches from the ceiling.

I used graph paper to map out the line of sight for the front and rear row to be sure the rear row did not see the heads of the people in front at the bottom of the screen.

Another advantage to having the screen higher, is when you have your feet up, your feet won't block the screen.


With 105 inches, these may not be a problem for you.

Some say a 15 degree angle is best. See the picture below.



 



I would do what feels comfortable for you.

My personal preference is on the higher side.


Good luck.


----------



## bighvy76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jdgate*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23716323
> 
> 
> So I finally picked up my Seymour screen. I went with a 105 wide premier frame glacier white screen. My question is, what are some recommendations for how high to mount the screen. I have 2 rows of seats with the back row on a 12 inch riser, ceiling is 8'8". First row viewing distance is a little over 11 foot with second row about 5 foot behind that. I am using an Epson 5020ub (has lens shift capability). I am using Rowone Front Row seats if that makes any difference.


I have always like the rule that the front row should be looking at the bottom 1/3 of the screen so you get the looking up a bit at the screen like at the movies. The second row will be about strait in. I have my 120" at 11" down from a 8' ceiling.


----------



## Jdgate

Thanks for the advice guys. I tend to over think things.


----------



## ScottJ

Some photos from the install of my 100" wide dual-roller CIW masking screen from Seymour:


1: unboxing
 


2: front cover removed
 


3: the drywall lift I rented
 


4: 2x6 cross-beams screwed into the DIN rails
 


5: screen on lift in place on ceiling
 


6: screen bolted to ceiling
 


7: screen down, 1.78 aspect ratio
 


8: mask down, 2.40 aspect ratio
 


I spent about 23 hours this weekend working on this install, mostly by myself, and with one other guy for an hour or two. The hardest part was positioning the screen exactly where I wanted it without any help. Climb ladder, measure, move screen, move ladder to other side, measure, move hoist, repeat.


Finding the joists in my lath & plaster ceiling was also a bear, as three different electronic studfinders were all having trouble. In the end, the $5 magnetic nail finder worked best.


I put a total of 8 wood screws into the 2x6s from underneath the DIN rails, then slid the rails back into the slots on the case and tightened them down. Then raised the hoist into position and put eight 1/4" lag bolts through the beams and up into the joists. When all done I tried pulling down on the case with about as much weight as I could and there was no movement. I probably would have been fine with a total of 4 lag bolts.


While the hard part is done, I still have to reinstall all the entertainment center & equipment under/behind the screen tonight. Getting the projector installed is a whole separate project, still in progress.


----------



## nickbuol

Can you control how far down everything goes? The last photo has the visible screen really low from the way it looks in the pictures.


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nickbuol*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2200_100#post_23717822
> 
> 
> Can you control how far down everything goes? The last photo has the visible screen really low from the way it looks in the pictures.



Yes you can control it. I asked for that size drop. The bottom of the screen is 24" from the floor. Perhaps it is too low. I'll decide when I start watching movies on it.


There are adjustments inside the motor to control the stop points on each end. I haven't tried to adjust that but I think you can do it by reaching up into the case with a screwdriver. Or, depending on the control system you choose when ordering, there may be other options. I am using the "higher-end" RS232 option (as opposed to IR, RF, or basic RS232) and my automation controller can stop the screen at any point in the travel.


The tensioning system might need to be adjusted if you change the height, in order to remove any waves in the screen material. There's instructions in the install guide.


----------



## jimmyk36

So I have my DIY Seymour screen up. My Question is - Has anyone added a Border/Frame around the front of a DIY Seymour AV screen _AFTER_ the material has been attached such as the following? If so - how did you attach it to the screen?


I have my material wrapped around the edges of the frame:


Here is the frame painted before I added the fabric. I used washers under the brackets to offset the middle supports so they don't touch the screen material
 


Here is the screen material attached using grommets and O-rings:

 


Here is the screen mounted:

 


Here is my old screen in front of the Seymour AV Screen. I put it there to take a picture to put on craigslist.

Question is - should I keep the frame from the old screen and mount it somehow to the Seymour AV or build some sort of DIY frame and attach it?

 


Hope I am making sense? Basically looking for the best way to attach a ~ 2.5" border to the front of the frame.


Thanks - Jim


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

Jim,


If I understand you, try something like this.


It's velvet type material with adhesive on the back.


You can buy it on Ebay, but do not buy from the person in India. I made this mistake and the adhesive didn't stick. It just fell off the screen.


----------



## jimmyk36

Thanks Jeff - yes something like that looks like it would work.

I assume you found some on e-bay that does stick? Are you attaching to Seymour XD material as well?


The other option I am thinking of is to build a frame and warp in velvet but looking for ideas as to how to attach?

Maybe countersink some screws and attach to the front of the frame and then wrap the border...


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jimmyk36*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23719724
> 
> 
> Thanks Jeff - yes something like that looks like it would work.
> 
> I assume you found some on e-bay that does stick? Are you attaching to Seymour XD material as well?
> 
> 
> The other option I am thinking of is to build a frame and warp in velvet but looking for ideas as to how to attach?
> 
> Maybe countersink some screws and attach to the front of the frame and then wrap the border...



Check out my build link for a few more details, but the short version is:


I have a Seymour XD screen surrounded by black speaker cloth. This is for the transition.


I bought some from India and it was really bad. It just fell off.


For my last home, I used some of this in 2007 and it worked perfectly. I found the exact same seller and purchased some more from them recently.

I will hang it very soon.

As long as they didn't change how it was made, it should be fine like before.


----------



## magicj1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23717890
> 
> 
> Yes you can control it. I asked for that size drop. The bottom of the screen is 24" from the floor. Perhaps it is too low. I'll decide when I start watching movies on it.
> 
> 
> There are adjustments inside the motor to control the stop points on each end. I haven't tried to adjust that but I think you can do it by reaching up into the case with a screwdriver. Or, depending on the control system you choose when ordering, there may be other options. I am using the "higher-end" RS232 option (as opposed to IR, RF, or basic RS232) and my automation controller can stop the screen at any point in the travel.
> 
> 
> The tensioning system might need to be adjusted if you change the height, in order to remove any waves in the screen material. There's instructions in the install guide.



Is the 'higher-end' RS232 option advertised on the Seymour site?


I've just gone with the Dual motor control box with IR lead, I had planed to use iRule to control this, but you now have me intrigued??










I have gone for the side masking so the screen drop is the same for either 2.35:1 or 16:9. How do you intend to adjust this, are you going to alter the drop depending what aspect you use?


----------



## deromax

I also got some velvet tape from eBay and it's great! It is very black and holds well to the xd screen material it's affixed to.


----------



## smuggymba

So, between curved and fixed Seymour 4K screen, what's the best option if I chose to NOT use a anamorphic lens now but maybe in the future.


On the seymour website, they say that the curved screen is for use with anamorphic lens. Can we use a regular flat screen with anamorphic lens? Because of budget considerations, I'd like to buy the fancy stuff like anamorphic lens, oppo blu ray etc after the fact but I need to decide the screen now.


For a 140 inch diagonal, is curved better or flat. Thx.


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *magicj1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2200_100#post_23720314
> 
> 
> Is the 'higher-end' RS232 option advertised on the Seymour site?
> 
> 
> I've just gone with the Dual motor control box with IR lead, I had planed to use iRule to control this, but you now have me intrigued??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have gone for the side masking so the screen drop is the same for either 2.35:1 or 16:9. How do you intend to adjust this, are you going to alter the drop depending what aspect you use?



The Seymour website is vague on the advanced control options available. I discussed with Chris Seymour and because I am doing CIW masking, which can support any number of aspect ratios, the higher-end RQ card was the best choice for me. With it I can move the mask to any of 1000 positions between the top and bottom of travel. I got two RQ cards connected to one RQ bridge which has one RS232 port that controls both motors.


The screen tensioning system is adjusted for one specific drop height, so I might have wrinkles if I raise it up for a different aspect ratio. (Though I might still try that). My plan is to always put the screen all the way down, then accommodate different aspect ratios using a combination of electronic image shift through my Lumagen Radiance and moving the mask. One could also use projector lens shift to move the image down as needed, though you will then have black bars projected below the screen, which may be visible or distracting depending on your setup.


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23720508
> 
> 
> So, between curved and fixed Seymour 4K screen, what's the best option if I chose to NOT use a anamorphic lens now but maybe in the future.
> 
> 
> On the seymour website, they say that the curved screen is for use with anamorphic lens. Can we use a regular flat screen with anamorphic lens? Because of budget considerations, I'd like to buy the fancy stuff like anamorphic lens, oppo blu ray etc after the fact but I need to decide the screen now.
> 
> 
> For a 140 inch diagonal, is curved better or flat. Thx.



What is your throw distance to the screen going to be? If you don't mind some pincushion to the image or can easily mask it with your screen borders then flat is fine. I'm considering the exact same size screen and I'm going to go with flat. The curved has a cool factor to it but it is considerably more expensive. If you have a long enough throw distance then it won't matter. If you don't then you will need a cylindrical anamorphic lens to handle without distortion or get the curved screen. If you have money to burn then do both.


----------



## smuggymba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23720854
> 
> 
> What is your throw distance to the screen going to be? If you don't mind some pincushion to the image or can easily mask it with your screen borders then flat is fine. I'm considering the exact same size screen and I'm going to go with flat. The curved has a cool factor to it but it is considerably more expensive. If you have a long enough throw distance then it won't matter. If you don't then you will need a cylindrical anamorphic lens to handle without distortion or get the curved screen. If you have money to burn then do both.



Throw would be 14 ft. but I can change it if needed. So, is pincushion caused by projector being closer or farther from the screen. Budget is a factor so I plan to do my media room in steps.


@Dropzone7 - what projector are you using? Do you have the 4K Seymour screen or the XD material?


Do I need a Sony HW50ES for a Seymour screen or will a Epson8350 do just as good?


----------



## magicj1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23720826
> 
> 
> The Seymour website is vague on the advanced control options available. I discussed with Chris Seymour and because I am doing CIW masking, which can support any number of aspect ratios, the higher-end RQ card was the best choice for me. With it I can move the mask to any of 1000 positions between the top and bottom of travel. I got two RQ cards connected to one RQ bridge which has one RS232 port that controls both motors.
> 
> 
> The screen tensioning system is adjusted for one specific drop height, so I might have wrinkles if I raise it up for a different aspect ratio. (Though I might still try that). My plan is to always put the screen all the way down, then accommodate different aspect ratios using a combination of electronic image shift through my Lumagen Radiance and moving the mask. One could also use projector lens shift to move the image down as needed, though you will then have black bars projected below the screen, which may be visible or distracting depending on your setup.



I see, so the Lumagen Radiance is capable of vertical shift, that's pretty cool. I'm using an Iscan Duo, unfortunately this has no such function. I did think it may spoil the effect having placed your speakers behind then raising the screen to suit.


When I used 16:9 electric screens in the past I made an electric 12v pulley system in my loft space, this would lower black stage fabric to alter the aspect when I was watching 2.40:1 films, I would also have to raise the screen, it was quite effective but always looked DIY.


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23720898
> 
> 
> Throw would be 14 ft. but I can change it if needed. So, is pincushion caused by projector being closer or farther from the screen. Budget is a factor so I plan to do my media room in steps.
> 
> 
> @Dropzone7 - what projector are you using? Do you have the 4K Seymour screen or the XD material?
> 
> 
> Do I need a Sony HW50ES for a Seymour screen or will a Epson8350 do just as good?



I'm using the JVC X55R (RS4810) with a Panamorph UH480 anamorphic lens and motorized sled. I don't have a screen yet but I'm hoping to get the Seymour with Centerstage XD material. I don't really see the advantage of going with the 4K fabric in my installation. My projector does the eShift to simulate 4K and this is close enough for me until actual content is widely available and native 4K projectors get into my price range. I have heard good things about the Sony, not sure about the Epson other than that I believe it is LCD and blacks may not be as good as with a JVC or Sony model. My throw is just a bit over 14' to my temporary screen (fabric, sheet, etc.) and while there are some geometry issues with the scope format, it's nothing I can't live with and I think it will be better on an actual flat screen with borders and masking. I would only go the curved route if I had the budget and I certainly don't. If you can mount the projector further back and still keep light output where you want it then I would push it to 16' or more to improve geometry for when you do get the anamorphic lens.


----------



## smuggymba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23721083
> 
> 
> I'm using the JVC X55R (RS4810) with a Panamorph UH480 anamorphic lens and motorized sled. I don't have a screen yet but I'm hoping to get the Seymour with Centerstage XD material. I don't really see the advantage of going with the 4K fabric in my installation. My projector does the eShift to simulate 4K and this is close enough for me until actual content is widely available and native 4K projectors get into my price range. I have heard good things about the Sony, not sure about the Epson other than that I believe it is LCD and blacks may not be as good as with a JVC or Sony model. My throw is just a bit over 14' to my temporary screen (fabric, sheet, etc.) and while there are some geometry issues with the scope format, it's nothing I can't live with and I think it will be better on an actual flat screen with borders and masking. I would only go the curved route if I had the budget and I certainly don't. If you can mount the projector further back and still keep light output where you want it then I would push it to 16' or more to improve geometry for when you do get the anamorphic lens.



amazing setup.


What speaker are hiding behind your AT screen? Do you have a thread on building the baffle wall? Thx.


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23724434
> 
> 
> amazing setup.
> 
> 
> What speaker are hiding behind your AT screen? Do you have a thread on building the baffle wall? Thx.



If you are looking at pictures of my room then it's the old screen which was not AT and 16:9. I have no screen at all right now.







The room is essentially just an extra bedroom and less than ideal for a home theater but I have made do over the years. When I decided to go scope and AT everything had to change. To complicate things further, my screen wall has a huge window right in middle of it! I built a simple wall of 2x4's and mounted my speakers in the that. Behind that is a layer of linacoustic which covers the real wall and window. My speakers are Snell AMC870 inwall speakers that I bought used. They are in sealed aluminum back boxes so they sound very much like cabinet speakers. My surround speakers are all Emotiva ERD-1's. Life gets in the way and with all the unexpected expenses of the last few months I have had to put a screen and everything else on the back burner for a while.


----------



## cw5billwade

Thanks Chris and Jon for all of your help I look foward to hanging my projector and your screen.


Merchant:

SEYMOUR PRODUCTS LLC

Description:


Image Size: 125'' x 64''-Piece Size: 131'' x 70''- 143- 11 deg +4 orings extraorings from corner $35 ship


----------



## coolgeek

Sony has just announced the cheaper version of their 4K projector, the VW 500 which I think might just be in my price range. I am now wondering if the XD screen is suitable for 4K if the projector is far enough and if so, at what distance does the projector have to be at before the XD screen can be used for 4K playback?


I like the XD over the EN4K because of the 1.2 gain which will give more pop.... what do you guys think? Using XD for 4K projector?


----------



## smuggymba

What speakers to people use behind their Seymour AT screens?


----------



## Nyal Mellor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23735716
> 
> 
> What speakers to people use behind their Seymour AT screens?


Procella










Did you get my PM? Haven't gotten a response back from u


----------



## coolgeek

Anyone know the prices for the EN4K? It's not listed on their website. I am now considering the Sony vw500es which is a 4K projector. Not sure if XD would still be a better choice as it has more gain... (I guess gain vs grain)


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23735716
> 
> 
> What speakers to people use behind their Seymour AT screens?



JTR Speakers... at least for me.


----------



## bighvy76

Infinity for me


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

It seems to be down to personal taste/preference (many use what they already have), but a lot of people seem to be gong for speakers with compression drivers and waveguides, much like those found in commercial theatres (JBL for example). Some manufacturers like Procella work well in baffle walls so if you go that route, you need to know if your speakers are suitable. Having the 2Pi data from the manufacturer will tell you that (though not many have it).


I like the Econowave style speakers myself (RIP Zilch), so there are plenty of DIY options there for you. Gedlee and Wayne Parham also have speakers like those with known performance and data readily to hand so you can make an informed decision for your particular set up. DIYSoundgroup have plenty of DIY options at great prices, so if DIY is you bag, I'd look there too.


Gary


----------



## chriscmore

I personally like nice tall line arrays. If anyone is going to CEDIA, the S-SE 4K screen will be in the huge Wisdom Audio demo room downstairs. The screen will be 21' wide, have a prototype Runco projector, and 60kW of amps driving Wisdom's system with 10' tall L/C/R fronts. It may well be the most ambitious CEDIA demo room to date.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## bkeeler10

Um, yeah, I think I will be showing up to that room. I have a booth to work, but I will find some time for that and a few other things too. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## magicj1

Question.


Having placed an order for a screen, are you advised before shipping, or is it just a case of the waiting game?


----------



## cw5billwade

DYI material with gromets and bands took two days from order to ship


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *magicj1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2200_100#post_23744988
> 
> 
> Having placed an order for a screen, are you advised before shipping, or is it just a case of the waiting game?



My retractable screen took over 6 weeks to ship, but they did send a tracking number at that time. I also checked with them a few days earlier and they gave me the expected ship date.


----------



## Expat444




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23735716
> 
> 
> What speakers to people use behind their Seymour AT screens?


Triad Bronze for LCR, the subs are between the screen and the stage.


----------



## magicj1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23745079
> 
> 
> DYI material with gromets and bands took two days from order to ship





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23745101
> 
> 
> My retractable screen took over 6 weeks to ship, but they did send a tracking number at that time. I also checked with them a few days earlier and they gave me the expected ship date.



Cheers.


Mines coming up to 4 weeks now which is what I was told it would be, but I guess I may need to be a little more patient if yours took 6 weeks Scott.


I have tried contacting them but with CEDIA on I probably couldn't have picked a worse time to try.


----------



## sCiEnt

Does anyone have any tips on getting wrinkles out of a roll down screen?


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sCiEnt*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23748673
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any tips on getting wrinkles out of a roll down screen?



Your wrinkles are due to the border being thicker than the screen. Have you fixed that problem yet? After that I would expect the wrinkles would go away on their own.


For those who have the Seymour tab-tensioned screen there are instructions in the installation document for adjusting the turnbuckles to remove any waves or wrinkles.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sCiEnt*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23748673
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any tips on getting wrinkles out of a roll down screen?



As a clarification, this is a DIY roll down screen, not a manufactured retractable.


I'd advise as much straight, even down weight as can be attached. Increasing the roller diameter helps. And of course keeping the roll up diameter of all materials the same, unless they are unattached to each other and allowed to find their dimensional destiny.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## sCiEnt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23749972
> 
> 
> As a clarification, this is a DIY roll down screen, not a manufactured retractable.
> 
> 
> I'd advise as much straight, even down weight as can be attached. Increasing the roller diameter helps. And of course keeping the roll up diameter of all materials the same, unless they are unattached to each other and allowed to find their dimensional destiny.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Just so we are clear, as Chris mentioned, I made this DIY electric roll down screen myself using CenterStage fabric. It is mounted on a 2.5" roller. I have since removed the velvet border and painted on a black border just on the sides. I am hoping the tensioning will take away some of the wrinkles but I doubt its going to remove all. Before I rolled it up I wanted to remove / reduce the wrinkles as much as possible.


----------



## rx-8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23735716
> 
> 
> What speakers to people use behind their Seymour AT screens?



Mains: 3 x Seaton Cat12c's

LFE: 2 x Seaton F2's


I'm VERY happy with this screen (120' wide) and speaker combination.










-- Bill --


----------



## BRAD S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23735716
> 
> 
> What speakers to people use behind their Seymour AT screens?



JTR Triple 8's and a Danley DTS-10 behind mine.


----------



## GWCR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23735716
> 
> 
> What speakers to people use behind their Seymour AT screens?


Emotiva ERM-6.2's for LCR. HSU Research VTF-3 MK4 sub.


----------



## deromax

HSU HC1 Mk2 center, placed vertically


LR are my own design and construction comprising a Dynaudio 15w75 low-mid and a 1 inch alu dome SEAS tweeter whose model I don't remember, actively bi-amped.


----------



## smuggymba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GWCR*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23776972
> 
> 
> Emotiva ERM-6.2's for LCR. HSU Research VTF-3 MK4 sub.



If I may ask how much are these and do you love them?


----------



## gtwizard

quick question. so the 3d on these center stage screens is no good?


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtwizard*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23777544
> 
> 
> quick question. so the 3d on these center stage screens is no good?



I have read some things about AT screens not being the best fit for passive 3D systems but I don't think it's an issue with 3D systems that use active glasses. Apparently there are very few AT screen materials that retain the polorization for passive 3D. I don't even have my screen yet but my projector will do 3D and I think it uses the active glasses. I have little interest in 3D but it would be nice to know if it will work with the Centerstage XD material. Maybe Chris will chime in when he gets a chance.


----------



## GWCR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23777065
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GWCR*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23776972
> 
> 
> Emotiva ERM-6.2's for LCR. HSU Research VTF-3 MK4 sub.
> 
> 
> 
> If I may ask how much are these and do you love them?
Click to expand...

I picked up the ERMs right before Emotiva changed to their current speaker line, so they were an excellent deal. I also have the Emotiva ERD-1's for my side and rear surrounds. Total was right around $1,200 for all 7 of them I believe. I am very impressed by the sound they put out, and have absolutely no regrets about the purchase. Everyone who has been in my HT thinks they sound fantastic.


The VTF-3 is also an excellent sub IMO. Full of chest thumping goodness when you need it, nice and subtle when you don't. IIRC I got that on one of HSU's sales for $650ish. Everything is driven by my Onkyo809 AVR. We don't listen at reference levels, so haven't really come close to pushing its limits yet.


----------



## cw5billwade

Can someone tell me how far from the gromet I need to place the screw for the bands? Got tierd of searching and want to hang my dyi screen tomorrow


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtwizard*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23777544
> 
> 
> quick question. so the 3d on these center stage screens is no good?



I'm running my JVC X95R on a centrestageXD 140" 2:37 screen and 3D is fantastic. It takes about 10 mins for the glasses to warm up but other than that I am really happy with the XD screen for 3D. The worst part was coughing up the $$ to have 8 sets of RF glasses for when I have a full house 3D viewing.

Don't know how it would perform in passive 3D but then there aren't a lot of low cost passive 3D projectors out there are there?


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23780000
> 
> 
> Can someone tell me how far from the gromet I need to place the screw for the bands? Got tierd of searching and want to hang my dyi screen tomorrow



On my screen the grommets are about an inch from the posts. Although I haven't measured it.


----------



## cw5billwade

That is what I was thinking about 1inch to 1 1/4


----------



## mv038856




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gtwizard*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23777544
> 
> 
> quick question. so the 3d on these center stage screens is no good?



I think it depends on the 3D technology...


- Active shutter glasses - should not be a problem, besides the brightness loss caused by perforation - here the higher gain center stage XD might be advantageous

- Passive 3D with polarization - works on silver screens only, can't tell how perforating such a screen affects 3D performance (i.e. if perforation leads to polarization not being kept). Since all RealD cinemas work this way and have acoustical transparent screens, it should work as well.

- Passive 3D with wavelength multiplex visualization (Infitec, Dolby 3D) - should not be a problem - same screen requirements and flexibility as active shutter glass technology


Hope this helps!



Markus


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23780702
> 
> 
> That is what I was thinking about 1inch to 1 1/4



Did you get it hung up yet?


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23800052
> 
> 
> Did you get it hung up yet?


Finally finished this weekend not sure how much to post here but I have a build thread in my signature. I worked with Jon at Seymour AV on a custom Seymour Center Stage XD materiel with grommets and bands stretched on a DYI frame. It is about 2.1 ratio 126" wide and 65" tall giving me a 136" diagonal 2.35:1 of 126"X53" and a 132" diagonal 16x9 of 115"x65". I started my making the minimalist wall used by so many but I want to give credit to BigMouthinDC.
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20130925_174428.jpg.html  

Then I made the frame out of 1x3 finger joined pine
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20130924_142020.jpg.html  
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20130924_145605.jpg.html  

I edged it with toe molding so the screen would have a nice crisp edge
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20130924_145712-1.jpg.html  

Then I wrapped it in velvet from SYFabrics
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131019_143835.jpg.html  
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131019_144210.jpg.html  

Then I installed the XD screen on the frame
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20130929_165119.jpg.html  
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131019_145236.jpg.html  

at first I laid out the screen punt my frame down and marked the screw locations 1 1/4" above each grommet.
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20130929_171241.jpg.html  

you see here that the screw is perpendicular to the grommet as indicated by the marker.
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20130929_173841.jpg.html  
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20130929_181936.jpg.html  

when we got it on the wall there was a lot of sag so I chatted with Jon via email and Chris via PM and their solution was to add another 1/4" and to also have the screws get further off center as you got closer to the corners. Hope you understand what I mean. You can see the old screw holes
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131019_150656.jpg.html  

Wrapping the corner was interesting
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131019_151257.jpg.html  
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131019_151241.jpg.html  

and done it is tight as a drum I think that the velvet also helped as it was a smother surface so less resistant than the painted wood for the fabric to stretch over http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131019_151432.jpg.html  

With my LED accent lighting
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131019_151449.jpg.html


----------



## cw5billwade

This is me trying to learn how to use my Panasonic AE8000

From the back of room
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131020_223706.jpg.html  
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131020_224118.jpg.html  

I zoomed my camera still from back
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131020_223657.jpg.html  

from the front seat with no zoom of camera
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131020_224139.jpg.html  

Before anyone asks this is before I did some fine toning of the projector leveling and what not I have to say the image is bright and after running Audyssey on my Denon AVR X4000 you do not even know the screen is there or the speakers are behind it.


----------



## jimmyk36

Looks good! Almost exactly how I did mine except I only painted the frame black - no velvet or border.


What kind of "LED Accent Lighting" are you using?


----------



## coolgeek

Looks really nice. Can't wait to get mine going


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jimmyk36*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23864593
> 
> 
> Looks good! Almost exactly how I did mine except I only painted the frame black - no velvet or border.
> 
> when I finished my frames I painted them and after posting in my thread some fellow AVS members recommended wrapping them
> 
> 
> What kind of "LED Accent Lighting" are you using?



I used these 4" LED can disk light because it fits right into a 4” junction box no need for the extra cost of the can.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Commercial-Electric-4-in-Recessed-Soft-White-LED-Can-Disk-Light-CE-JB4-600L-27K-E26/203596702?N=bvlwZ1z115g2ZdnZ1z115g2 

It also comes in 6” which fits in the 4" junction box as well
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Commercial-Electric-6-in-Recessed-Soft-White-LED-Can-Disk-Light-CE-JB6-650L-27K-E26/203596700?N=bvlwZ1z115g2ZdnZ1z115g2 

http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20130725_120909.jpg.html


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2130#post_23574394
> 
> 
> I have been to a couple of I-Max and have been not been impressed with either, I have a much better picture with my home theater.
> 
> 
> I still don't see why you want a curved screen, you are going to have pincushin if not using a lense. The projectors are not designed to shot on a curve screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mension I don't know how well it will focus when the sides of the screen are closer then the center. Anyone ever try a curve screen with a regular projector?



Yes, commercial cinemas do it all the time. The trick is to have a long enough throw ratio to diminish the barrel distortion to the point of being very minimal/indistinguishable. If you've got a short throw ratio, a curve is going to cause pretty noticable barrel distortion. If not, your opinion on the cool factor potential in your room should drive your decision. Some folks find it cool, others don't.


The depth of focus on such a throw is greater than the depth of the screen.


Chris, with the radius of your screen, would you say that around 1.7- 1.8 TR would be a happy medium?


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23869727
> 
> 
> Yes, commercial cinemas do it all the time. The trick is to have a long enough throw ratio to diminish the barrel distortion to the point of being very minimal/indistinguishable. If you've got a short throw ratio, a curve is going to cause pretty noticable barrel distortion. If not, your opinion on the cool factor potential in your room should drive your decision. Some folks find it cool, others don't.
> 
> 
> The depth of focus on such a throw is greater than the depth of the screen.
> 
> 
> Chris, with the radius of your screen, would you say that around 1.7- 1.8 TR would be a happy medium?



How do you calculate the throw ratio? Distance to screeb divide by width of screen?


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolgeek*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23869963
> 
> 
> How do you calculate the throw ratio? Distance to screeb divide by width of screen?



That's right.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23869727
> 
> 
> Chris, with the radius of your screen, would you say that around 1.7- 1.8 TR would be a happy medium?



I think my estimate of 1.6-1.7 may be short. I bet it's more like 1.7 or longer. We'll see if Chris rings in (or someone else).


I've been using a Panamorph HE lens for years on a flat screen with about a 1.65 throw ratio, and pincushion distortion is virtually undetectable. I would think that the lack of use of an HE lens on a curve screen with that throw ratio or longer would render the same.


----------



## Drexler

Throw ratio affects pincushion when using an a-lens. However if you're just using the projector I dont believe throw distance would have an effect as there is no pincushion to begin with. I think the depth of focus would increase though.


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23870898
> 
> 
> Throw ratio affects pincushion when using an a-lens. However if you're just using the projector I dont believe throw distance would have an effect as there is no pincushion to begin with. I think the depth of focus would increase though.



Forgive me, I wasn't anywhere near clear enough with my comment. What I meant to compare was a flat screen with an HE anamorphic verses a curved screen without an anamorphic. At longer throw ratios, pincusion and barrel distortion would be simlarly minimal in those scenarios. Of course, curved with HE anamorphic is ideal.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23869727
> 
> 
> Yes, commercial cinemas do it all the time. The trick is to have a long enough throw ratio to diminish the barrel distortion to the point of being very minimal/indistinguishable. If you've got a short throw ratio, a curve is going to cause pretty noticable barrel distortion. If not, your opinion on the cool factor potential in your room should drive your decision. Some folks find it cool, others don't.
> 
> 
> The depth of focus on such a throw is greater than the depth of the screen.
> 
> 
> Chris, with the radius of your screen, would you say that around 1.7- 1.8 TR would be a happy medium?



I'd call Mike at AVS and ask him to calculate what the pincushion distortion would be at that throw ratio. I'm at too short a range, about 1.4, to be adding a lens. Boo.


As for how much barrel distortion would be caused by using a curved screen without a lens, you can measure this by taking something flexible to simulate the curve. Even a sheet, pulled in the difference of the distance will show image height at that point versus at the sides. Several folks use curve screens without a lens, especially for 16:9 or 2.07 native screens, and are long enough throw or also perhaps finding the Fidelio velvet absorptive enough for overscan.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2250#post_23870734
> 
> 
> That's right.
> 
> I think my estimate of 1.6-1.7 may be short. I bet it's more like 1.7 or longer. We'll see if Chris rings in (or someone else).
> 
> 
> I've been using a Panamorph HE lens for years on a flat screen with about a 1.65 throw ratio, and pincushion distortion is virtually undetectable. I would think that the lack of use of an HE lens on a curve screen with that throw ratio or longer would render the same.



1.79 would be just about perfect with his 40' radius and a HE lens. Use of a curved screen with a projector and no lens is usually not a problem. The screen will be slightly out of focus at the edges, but that is the best place to be out of focus. You just hardly notice it.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23872237
> 
> 
> 1.79 would be just about perfect with his 40' radius and a HE lens. Use of a curved screen with a projector and no lens is usually not a problem. The screen will be slightly out of focus at the edges, but that is the best place to be out of focus. You just hardly notice it.



Ok, so if my screen width is 10 feet, I'll need to have the projector at 18 feet minimum right? Which means, i can't have a curved screen







From the screen to the back of my room is only 18 feet.. so, even if I mount the projector flushed to the wall, i'll have less than 17 feet of throw distance...


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolgeek*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23873279
> 
> 
> Ok, so if my screen width is 10 feet, I'll need to have the projector at 18 feet minimum right? Which means, i can't have a curved screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the screen to the back of my room is only 18 feet.. so, even if I mount the projector flushed to the wall, i'll have less than 17 feet of throw distance...



i think an additional question is quantitative. If the amount of pincushion distortion can be well and easily hidden within the confines of the screen border, might he be able to still go with the curved screen for its cool factor? I'd certainly consider it, if it were me.


----------



## rcohen

Here ya go:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1118055/diy-screen-curve-calculator-aussie-bob


----------



## magicj1

Got my Center stage Dual roller electric screen up and running today. There are a few teething problems I have contacted Chris about, one being able to control these via IR remote. I am using IRule, they have a set of Seymour center stage retractable screen codes that seem to work, the rouble is, the codes work for both screen and masking at the same time. How can you control these individually?


I am using the Dual motor 4 wire control box.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *magicj1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23877793
> 
> 
> Got my Center stage Dual roller electric screen up and running today. There are a few teething problems I have contacted Chris about, one being able to control these via IR remote. I am using IRule, they have a set of Seymour center stage retractable screen codes that seem to work, the rouble is, the codes work for both screen and masking at the same time. How can you control these individually?
> 
> 
> I am using the Dual motor 4 wire control box.



You're using channel "ALL" which will of course actuate both motors A and B. You need to use channel 1 and 2 for motors A or B. The hex codes are on the site, or if you can't download them we have a multi-channel IR remote if you need.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## magicj1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23878405
> 
> 
> You're using channel "ALL" which will of course actuate both motors A and B. You need to use channel 1 and 2 for motors A or B. The hex codes are on the site, or if you can't download them we have a multi-channel IR remote if you need.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Doh!!


Thanks Chris


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *magicj1*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23877793
> 
> 
> Got my Center stage Dual roller electric screen up and running today.



So how did the install go? Did you have joists in the right place or did you have to engineer something? Three people?


----------



## NORLL

I have not been able to find much information on the Seymour Glacial White non-AT screen material. Have any of you tested it? Are there any reviews of it anywhere?


----------



## magicj1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23881061
> 
> 
> So how did the install go? Did you have joists in the right place or did you have to engineer something? Three people?




Went well thanks, ended up putting noggins in ceiling joists, you could swing off these. We, '2 of us,' attached straps to the ceiling joists either side of the screen position, then slowly lifted and adjusted the straps 'each end' until we could put fixings in. Even managed to keep the bubble wrap on until the very last minute.


----------



## rcohen

How much of an issue is contrast loss due to cross-lighting on a 130-140" wide curved screen with Center Stage XD?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rcohen*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23936340
> 
> 
> How much of an issue is contrast loss due to cross-lighting on a 130-140" wide curved screen with Center Stage XD?



Perhaps some owners can speak up, but we've done 210" curved - which at a fixed radius would have much more side screen action - without anyone saying anything negative. We've even done 180 and 360 simulators but they're typically flight or outdoor-type content where they're not that concerned with ANSI contrast. Being a Lambertian surface, I'm sure it's measurable but I don't have feedback that it's noticeable.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## audioguy

Has anyone seen either the Sony 500/600ES or the Sony 1000/1000ES on an AT screen? And if so, could you see any weave? I purchased the XD screen from Seymour when I thought I would be using my JVC RS55. Subsequent to that decision, I made the decision to get the sony 600ES and am wondering if the increased brightness will create any problems. Screen is 120 wide and I sit about 14 feet from it!


I spoke to someone today (not Chris) who suggested that on really bright scenes with a lot of light, I might be able to see the weave. I hope he was wrong.


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audioguy*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23941838
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen either the Sony 500/600ES or the Sony 1000/1000ES on an AT screen? And if so, could you see any weave? I purchased the XD screen from Seymour when I thought I would be using my JVC RS55. Subsequent to that decision, I made the decision to get the sony 600ES and am wondering if the increased brightness will create any problems. Screen is 120 wide and I sit about 14 feet from it!
> 
> 
> I spoke to someone today (not Chris) who suggested that on really bright scenes with a lot of light, I might be able to see the weave. I hope he was wrong.



I do not have experience with those particular projectors, but whether you see the weave has more to do with how close you sit than what projector you are using. Moire is another story.


I have to be about 9 feet from my screen to see the weave and even then it is only on bright scenes with a uniform color. You should not be able to see the weave at 14 feet.


----------



## audioguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2220#post_23735716
> 
> 
> What speakers to people use behind their Seymour AT screens?



My center channel only: Seaton Catalyst 12C. Left and right are well in front of the screen wall (I'm an old die hard 2 channel guy and like to see the speakers and have them placed well into the room for improved imaging.


----------



## lee1989

I have been offered to buy some cs xd screen material but noticed that the full screen was rather dirty or discoloured is there any way of cleaning it without damaging the material...thanks


----------



## cw5billwade

I have Panasonic AE 8000 and sit 10 ft from 126" wide 2.40:1 screen. I can not see any weave


----------



## GWCR

Similar setup for me. About 11' from a 120" wide 2.35:1 screen and a Panny 8000. No weave to be seen here.


----------



## Jdgate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audioguy*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23941838
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen either the Sony 500/600ES or the Sony 1000/1000ES on an AT screen? And if so, could you see any weave? I purchased the XD screen from Seymour when I thought I would be using my JVC RS55. Subsequent to that decision, I made the decision to get the sony 600ES and am wondering if the increased brightness will create any problems. Screen is 120 wide and I sit about 14 feet from it!
> 
> 
> I spoke to someone today (not Chris) who suggested that on really bright scenes with a lot of light, I might be able to see the weave. I hope he was wrong.



I also do not have experience with those projectors but I have to think at 14 feet you will be fine. I am basing this on the amount of people using the light cannon of an Epson 5020/6020 and not having issues. If I have read the specs correctly the 5020/6020 puts out more lumens than the Sony 600ES.


----------



## rcohen

I tried the 1000es with CSXD sample at 16 feet and there was no sign of weave. Also, the image was much brighter than any other AT material I tested. In a dark room, you should have excellent 2D brightness at 120".


----------



## audioguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rcohen*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23955725
> 
> 
> I tried the 1000es with CSXD sample at 16 feet and there was no sign of weave. Also, the image was much brighter than any other AT material I tested. In a dark room, you should have excellent 2D brightness at 120".



Thanks. Good to hear.


----------



## dropzone7

Oh boy, I have just about saved enough pennies to finally buy a screen. I have been lusting after a Seymour Premier Frame, 130" width at 2.35:1 with the Centerstage XD material. I hope to place an order in the next two weeks or so and maybe get it delivered and installed before my holiday vacation time. It sure will be nice to finally see the true potential of my projector with a proper screen instead of this off-white bedsheet I have hanging up now.


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23967886
> 
> 
> Oh boy, I have just about saved enough pennies to finally buy a screen. I have been lusting after a Seymour Premier Frame, 130" width at 2.35:1 with the Centerstage XD material. I hope to place an order in the next two weeks or so and maybe get it delivered and installed before my holiday vacation time. It sure will be nice to finally see the true potential of my projector with a proper screen instead of this off-white bedsheet I have hanging up now.


You will love it


----------



## L0nestar


If I'm running an Epson 5030ub without an anamorphic lens, could I still get a good image for 2:35:1? I'm trying to decide on which screen to purchase...I'm really interested in the curved screens...but I'm thinking I may have needed to go with a 6030 to make that happen......


The room is 20ft deep 13 ft wide with 8 ft ceilings, totally light controlled.


----------



## edfowler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *L0nestar*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_23982023
> 
> 
> If I'm running an Epson 5030ub without an anamorphic lens, could I still get a good image for 2:35:1? I'm trying to decide on which screen to purchase...I'm really interested in the curved screens...but I'm thinking I may have needed to go with a 6030 to make that happen......
> 
> 
> 
> The room is 20ft deep 13 ft wide with 8 ft ceilings, totally light controlled.


My Centerstage XD screen works beautifully on my 40' radius curved screen. I have a Panamorph but havent used it all year and it works just fine without a lens.


----------



## edfowler

My pj is 18' 6" from the screen so you room dimensions should work just fine, with or with out a lens.


----------



## SherazNJ

Hello guys,

I am planning to buy Seymour Center Stage XD which is an AT screen. Currently I own StudioTek 130 in 16:9 ratio that has a 1.3 gain. I am using Sony VPL-95ES projector.

The reason to buy the mateial is because I have a space of 142" width with a height of 8 feet. I was thinking of getting 135 inches width (141-6 where 6 inches for borders) in 2.35:1 aspect ration. I think it will give much more immersive experience as compared to my current screen. A few questions


1 - My current screen has 1.3 gain and this one will have 1.2 gain. Will there be a noticeable difference in brightness?

2 - My current screen is pretty much one of the best when it comes to quality. Will there be a noticeable difference in quality?

3 - If the room is 142" wide and I put screen that is 135" wide, would it be too much of screen size? I think it will be amazing but its always good to get more ideas.


I'm planning to get only the material and build the frame myself. I'll hide all the speakers behind the screen and will cover bottom and top of the frame with black AT cloth.

Thanks guys.


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2300_10#post_24001208
> 
> 
> Hello guys,
> 
> I am planning to buy Seymour Center Stage XD which is an AT screen. Currently I own StudioTek 130 in 16:9 ratio that has a 1.3 gain. I am using Sony VPL-95ES projector.
> 
> The reason to buy the mateial is because I have a space of 142" width with a height of 8 feet. I was thinking of getting 135 inches width (141-6 where 6 inches for borders) in 2.35:1 aspect ration. I think it will give much more immersive experience as compared to my current screen. A few questions
> 
> 
> 1 - My current screen has 1.3 gain and this one will have 1.2 gain. Will there be a noticeable difference in brightness?
> 
> 2 - My current screen is pretty much one of the best when it comes to quality. Will there be a noticeable difference in quality?
> 
> 3 - If the room is 142" wide and I put screen that is 135" wide, would it be too much of screen size? I think it will be amazing but its always good to get more ideas.



1 - You don't say how big your current screen is. I'm assuming it's the same height but narrower. That means the projector's brightness will now be spread over a wider area. That's going to make a bigger difference than the screen gain.


2 - I've never seen a StudioTek but according to Stewart's sales literature, a microperf screen (like they sell) has advantages over woven screens (like the Center Stage XD) with regard to more light being reflected back toward the viewer instead of onto the side walls. But microperf has disadvantages too, mainly in the much larger distance required between speakers and screen.


3 - You don't say how far back you are sitting. I sit 13' from a 100" wide 16:9 screen. I find it almost too tall for 16:9 movies, but too narrow for 2.35 movies.







But, there is a lot of personal preference in this answer.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_24001278
> 
> 
> 1 - You don't say how big your current screen is. I'm assuming it's the same height but narrower. That means the projector's brightness will now be spread over a wider area. That's going to make a bigger difference than the screen gain.
> 
> 
> 2 - I've never seen a StudioTek but according to Stewart's sales literature, a microperf screen (like they sell) has advantages over woven screens (like the Center Stage XD) with regard to more light being reflected back toward the viewer instead of onto the side walls. But microperf has disadvantages too, mainly in the much larger distance required between speakers and screen.
> 
> 
> 3 - You don't say how far back you are sitting. I sit 13' from a 100" wide 16:9 screen. I find it almost too tall for 16:9 movies, but too narrow for 2.35 movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, there is a lot of personal preference in this answer.



Sorry. My current screen is 130" 16:9 ratio. Currently I'm sitting 13 feet away from the sceen.


> Quote:
> That means the projector's brightness will now be spread over a wider area. That's going to make a bigger difference than the screen gain.


What difference would that be?


One of my concern is that my room is 142" wide wall to wall. After putting a frame (6 inches), I get 134" (give or take) wide screen. I am a little concern if its going to be overwhelming??


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2300_10#post_24001302
> 
> 
> Sorry. My current screen is 130" 16:9 ratio. Currently I'm sitting 13 feet away from the sceen.
> 
> What difference would that be



Your current screen area is approx 50.2 sq ft. New screen (assuming no a-lens) is effectively 71.2 sq ft. Brightness will decrease proportionately.


> Quote:
> One of my concern is that my room is 142" wide wall to wall. After putting a frame (6 inches), I get 134" (give or take) wide screen. I am a little concern if its going to be overwhelming??



Only you can answer that question. As for me, I think it sounds awesome.


Have you checked that your PJ's zoom lens can stretch that far?


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Have you checked that your PJ's zoom lens can stretch that far?



I didn't read the specs but I just turned on the projector and using Full Wide zoom (its a 2.35:1 aspect ratio) and I could zoom it out way beyond the total width of the wall. This not only showed that I can zoom it but also gave me a clue how the image would look like and I liked it. It was still hard to clearly see since its very light image beyond the screen on the wall but still I got the idea of how its going to look 


Since the ceiling is 8 feet high and I'll be placing the speakers behind the screen, I'd need to cover top and bottom with dark black cloth that has to to acoustically transparent. Any advice which one I should use?

Thanks.


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310_10#post_24001425
> 
> 
> Since the ceiling is 8 feet high and I'll be placing the speakers behind the screen, I'd need to cover top and bottom with dark black cloth that has to to acoustically transparent. Any advice which one I should use?
> 
> Thanks.



I can't really help there. Are your speakers really going to extend above the screen, or only below it?


Also since the edges of the screen will be very close to the side walls, you should consider treating those side walls in black velvet or such. Otherwise you will wash out the image with light reflected off the walls and back on to the screen.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2280#post_24001302
> 
> 
> Sorry. My current screen is 130" 16:9 ratio. Currently I'm sitting 13 feet away from the sceen.
> 
> What difference would that be?
> 
> 
> One of my concern is that my room is 142" wide wall to wall. After putting a frame (6 inches), I get 134" (give or take) wide screen. I am a little concern if its going to be overwhelming??



If your image is really close to the side walls make sure they are painted really DARK or covered in dark fabric, as they will reflect the image back onto the screen and reduce your blacks.

I have an XD AT screen and I just love it!

Mine is 145" dia. scope and I use the JVC X95 with it, I have more than enough lumens on the screen. I don't think you could find a better AT screen for the same price or more.


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24001425
> 
> 
> I didn't read the specs but I just turned on the projector and using Full Wide zoom (its a 2.35:1 aspect ratio) and I could zoom it out way beyond the total width of the wall. This not only showed that I can zoom it but also gave me a clue how the image would look like and I liked it. It was still hard to clearly see since its very light image beyond the screen on the wall but still I got the idea of how its going to look
> 
> 
> Since the ceiling is 8 feet high and I'll be placing the speakers behind the screen, I'd need to cover top and bottom with dark black cloth that has to to acoustically transparent. Any advice which one I should use?
> 
> Thanks.


Black speaker grill cloth from parts express is a cheap option to place above and below the screen.

http://www.parts-express.com/search.aspx?N=4294967118%204294963603&Nrs=collection()/record[endeca:matches(.,%22P_PortalID%22,%221%22)%20and%20endeca:matches(.,%22P_Searchable%22,%221%22)]&Ntt=Grill**&Ntx=mode%20matchall&PortalID=1&showMoreIds=10025&tahead=t 


Gullifords of Maine fabric is popular, but I believe it is more expensive.


----------



## Adam-DiVine

has anyone switched from a vutec silverstar to this screen material? I am thinking about going with a screen wall in my new theater which would not work with my current screen. I really like the brightness of my current 2.35 115" diagonal screen (using it with a JVC RS45). Am wondering what I would be sacrificing going with the center stage XD material. Any thoughts would be appreciated.


----------



## GWCR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24002200
> 
> 
> Black speaker grill cloth from parts express is a cheap option to place above and below the screen.
> 
> http://www.parts-express.com/search.aspx?N=4294967118%204294963603&Nrs=collection()/record[endeca:matches(.,%22P_PortalID%22,%221%22)%20and%20endeca:matches(.,%22P_Searchable%22,%221%22)]&Ntt=Grill**&Ntx=mode%20matchall&PortalID=1&showMoreIds=10025&tahead=t
> 
> 
> Gullifords of Maine fabric is popular, but I believe it is more expensive.


No need for AT fabric surrounding the screen. Your sound is coming from directly behind the screen, not around it. A popular choice for surrounding the screen is a black velvet. Syfabrics and Joannes are great places to pick it up. That is my project for the Thanksgiving weekend.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GWCR*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24002888
> 
> 
> No need for AT fabric surrounding the screen. Your sound is coming from directly behind the screen, not around it. A popular choice for surrounding the screen is a black velvet. Syfabrics and Joannes are great places to pick it up. That is my project for the Thanksgiving weekend.



I have 2 floor speakers. When I place them behind the screen, are you suggesting that I sould place standing flood such that their drivers are above screen base. In other words, if screen base is 3 feet from floor, the speaker drivers should be above 3 feet?


What about subwoofer? I am planning to place it behind the screen as well.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Also since the edges of the screen will be very close to the side walls, you should consider treating those side walls in black velvet or such. Otherwise you will wash out the image with light reflected off the walls and back on to the screen.





> Quote:
> If your image is really close to the side walls make sure they are painted really DARK or covered in dark fabric, as they will reflect the image back onto the screen and reduce your blacks.
> 
> I have an XD AT screen and I just love it!
> 
> Mine is 145" dia. scope and I use the JVC X95 with it, I have more than enough lumens on the screen. I don't think you could find a better AT screen for the same price or more.




Both are great points. I'm building 2 frames. One for the screen and one that will hold the screen frame. Screen frame will have 3 inches border all around with Black Velvet tape around it. Screen frame will be 141" wide and total space I have available is 142". I'm leaving one inch to move the frame in the room.


2nd image on this link is the one I'm going to build that will hold the screen frame. http://www.seymourav.com/installsfixedDIY.asp 

I still need to figure out how I can put the screen frame on this main frame yet. As you can see in the image, there will be top and bottom section that I will cover with black cloth.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24003335
> 
> 
> I have 2 floor speakers. When I place them behind the screen, are you suggesting that I sould place standing flood such that their drivers are above screen base. In other words, if screen base is 3 feet from floor, the speaker drivers should be above 3 feet?
> 
> 
> What about subwoofer? I am planning to place it behind the screen as well.



That is why you want AT material on the entire front screen wall. If you have Bass traps and such back their it is even more important.


----------



## GWCR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24003335
> 
> 
> I have 2 floor speakers. When I place them behind the screen, are you suggesting that I sould place standing flood such that their drivers are above screen base. In other words, if screen base is 3 feet from floor, the speaker drivers should be above 3 feet?
> 
> 
> What about subwoofer? I am planning to place it behind the screen as well.


Yes. Common practice is for the tweeters to be on the horizontal center line of the screen. Your goal should be to have all LCR speakers completely behind the AT screen. You may need to build/buy some stands to get them to the correct height. There are some pics of the stands I built in my thread. Pretty ugly, but they disappeared completely when I draped some black fabric over them. What speakers do you have?


The sub will not be affected by a velvet covered fabric panel. You need mass to dampen the low frequencies. They will blow right through the velvet.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GWCR*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24003408
> 
> 
> Yes. Common practice is for the tweeters to be on the horizontal center line of the screen. Your goal should be to have all LCR speakers completely behind the AT screen. You may need to build/buy some stands to get them to the correct height. There are some pics of the stands I built in my thread. Pretty ugly, but they disappeared completely when I draped some black fabric over them. What speakers do you have?
> 
> 
> The sub will not be affected by a velvet covered fabric panel. You need mass to dampen the low frequencies. They will blow right through the velvet.



I have Klipsch Reference speakers

L/R Speakers: RF-82 ( http://www.klipsch.com/rf-82-ii-floorstanding-speaker )

Center Speaker: RC-62 ( http://www.klipsch.com/rc-62-ii-center-speaker )


> Quote:
> You may need to build/buy some stands to get them to the correct height.



I understand that for central speakers but aren't Floor speakers already high enough?


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GWCR*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24003408
> 
> 
> Yes. Common practice is for the tweeters to be on the horizontal center line of the screen.



Common practice is to have the tweeters at ear level


----------



## GWCR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24003444
> 
> 
> I have Klipsch Reference speakers
> 
> L/R Speakers: RF-82 ( http://www.klipsch.com/rf-82-ii-floorstanding-speaker )
> 
> Center Speaker: RC-62 ( http://www.klipsch.com/rc-62-ii-center-speaker )
> 
> I understand that for central speakers but aren't Floor speakers already high enough?


Nice choice. Since those are 43.5" tall, it wouldn't take much to get that horn up to the mid-line of the screen. I'm no expert by any stretch, and I know there are people out there who use floor standing towers and have good performance. I'm only going off of my experience with my HT and the recommendations and plans that I got from the Erskine Group. Plans called for the tweeters to be on the horizontal mid-line of the screen, and was not speaker dependent as I didn't know what speakers I would be using at that time.


----------



## GWCR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24003535
> 
> 
> Common practice is to have the tweeters at ear level


Very true. In HT's with more than one row however, there is more than one ear level (that's about a 13" height difference in my case). I'm guessing that is part of the reason why mine were spec'd at mid-line. Also depends on the mounted screen height, and where that center line would be in relation to the seating area. Lots of variables to take into consideration that can drive one to drink (short trip for me







). Another reason I like to recommend the layout service from AVS or EG. Takes some of the guess work out of the equation.


----------



## SherazNJ

Does anyone have any idea how I can mount a frame on this
http://www.seymourav.com/installsfixedDIY.asp 


My idea is to build the frame first for the screen and then use another frame (top link) and mount the screen frame on it. I just can't get how to mount the screen frame on that base frame. Any idea guys?


----------



## cw5billwade

I just used z clamps from HD check my signature. I am going to build panels around it.


----------



## chriscmore

The audiophile practice is to have the tweeters at ear level and most premium speakers are designed that way. Cinema sound can be a bit higher, possibly up to tweeters at center line. If your speakers are taller and you'd like to get most or all of their lower frequency drivers behind the screen, then the tweeters could be quite high. I'd consider the mid-point the max height, otherwise the sound stage can sound too elevated. Another trick is to 180 your speakers, in effect hanging them upside down, if this gets the tweeters/mids more in that usually-sweet lower third of the screen. No one will see them, so you can focus on what sounds best. Also affecting the height of the sound stage is whether or not you have multiple rows. If so, go higher, if not, go closer to ear level.


Stewart says a lot of things about woven screens that are either conditionally true or are deeply arguable. Their "conclusion" on light scatter was completely paid for and "tested" on the thickest, most coarse weave available. And while gain is sometimes beneficial, if the screen is to be a unity-gain Lambertian surface, quality woven screens exhibit much better uniformity than their coated screens with holes. We'll simply continue replacing their holy screens while they keep patting themselves on the back.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## rx-8

A friend of mine is more into the commercial side of the AV business (design, AV calibration, etc.) and always touted the Stewart line of screens. He kept telling me that there were just too may comprises being made with woven screens. Long story short, he's been over several times now and he is just blown away with the sound quality, soundstage and picture quality. He now has a different opinion of woven screens.










-- Bill --


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24003966
> 
> 
> I just used z clamps from HD check my signature. I am going to build panels around it.



Can you please explain a bit more? I googled for z clamps but couldn't find it. What is Z clamp?


----------



## cw5billwade

Two strips of metal that are sort of bent at a 30 degree angle. One side screws to screen the other screws on to the minimalist wall. The screen clips slide over the one on the wall and they sort of form a z when they slide together


----------



## audioguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24008772
> 
> 
> Two strips of metal that are sort of bet at a 30 degree angle. One side screws to screen the other screws on to the minimalist wall. The screen clips slide over the one on the wall and they sort of form a z when slide together



The other name for these are "French cleats"


Example: http://t.homedepot.com/p/OOK-Hangman-13-Piece-French-Cleat-Picture-Hanger-Kit-with-Wall-Dogs-55312/202341625?cm_mmc=shopping-_-googleads-_-pla-_-202341625&skwcid&kwd=&ci_sku=202341625&ci_kw=&ci_gpa=pla&ci_src=17588969


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24007380
> 
> 
> The audiophile practice is to have the tweeters at ear level and most premium speakers are designed that way. Cinema sound can be a bit higher, possibly up to tweeters at center line. If your speakers are taller and you'd like to get most or all of their lower frequency drivers behind the screen, then the tweeters could be quite high. I'd consider the mid-point the max height, otherwise the sound stage can sound too elevated. Another trick is to 180 your speakers, in effect hanging them upside down, if this gets the tweeters/mids more in that usually-sweet lower third of the screen. No one will see them, so you can focus on what sounds best. Also affecting the height of the sound stage is whether or not you have multiple rows. If so, go higher, if not, go closer to ear level.
> 
> 
> Stewart says a lot of things about woven screens that are either conditionally true or are deeply arguable. Their "conclusion" on light scatter was completely paid for and "tested" on the thickest, most coarse weave available. And while gain is sometimes beneficial, if the screen is to be a unity-gain Lambertian surface, quality woven screens exhibit much better uniformity than their coated screens with holes. We'll simply continue replacing their holy screens while they keep patting themselves on the back.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



FWIW...from another thread in Screens...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/1496390/acoustically-transparent-screen-tweeter-height#post_23873121
> 
> 
> Professional cinemas place the horn at 2/3rds from the bottom of the screen, aimed toward 2/3rds back in the cinema.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rcohen*  /t/1496390/acoustically-transparent-screen-tweeter-height#post_23874336
> 
> 
> Thanks...so you suggest positioning higher like that and aiming down?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/1496390/acoustically-transparent-screen-tweeter-height#post_23874548
> 
> 
> Yes, on the height because the speaker will "voice" from the near the center of the screen. The slight extra height is to help with sightline to seats deeper in the room. With regards to aiming, that depends on your room (one or more rows) and the dispersion characteristics of your speakers. If you only have one row, definately aim it down as necessary to cover your area. (*EDIT:* This tilt downward should be rather mild if your screen is installed at a reasonable height.) If you have a second row, split the difference so that each row is within the coverage of your speaker(s).
> 
> 
> If you haven't already read this, I highly recommend you do. It's a superb primer on the subject. Scroll down to where it begins to discuss speakers. http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp
> 
> 
> Good luck.



Depending on the speaker design, most well-designed speakers will "voice" in a manner that makes picking out the height of the tweeter verses the mid-range difficult, if even possible. The Tannoys' concentric design will be a "point source." The Klipsch KL-525 and KL-650 have the unique side by side configuration of horn and vertically aligned woofers. The JTR 212 is the only "home" speaker I know of that is very wide range from its horn (>400 Hz). All would excel behind a good AT screen like Chris'.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

This is what Dolby says about speaker positioning in commercial theatres, with diagrams:

http://jimmy.thomas.free.fr/DOC/cinema/Dolby-Atmos-Cinema-Technical-Guidelines.pdf 


Gary


----------



## Tedd

Z clamps is a new term to me. French cleat is the usual term I have heard.

http://t.homedepot.com/p/OOK-Hangman-13-Piece-French-Cleat-Picture-Hanger-Kit-with-Wall-Dogs-55312/202341625?cm_mmc=shopping-_-googleads-_-pla-_-202341625&skwcid&kwd=&ci_sku=202341625&ci_kw=&ci_gpa=pla&ci_src=17588969&utm_campaign=website&utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email


----------



## chriscmore

Yes, if you're building a 200 seat theater, you can go higher than 1/2 up the image. The first few rows are abusive, however.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## tydilee

Greetings All. I'm thinking of getting a schneider anamorphic lens to go with my centre stage xd 110" wide 2.37 screen and JVC RS55 projector with a 15ft throw. I have seen the lens in action so I'm keen to get one however my screen isn't curved. Can I use the my existing screen material and just order the curved frame from Seymour screens?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tydilee*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24017760
> 
> 
> Greetings All. I'm thinking of getting a schneider anamorphic lens to go with my centre stage xd 110" wide 2.37 screen and JVC RS55 projector with a 15ft throw. I have seen the lens in action so I'm keen to get one however my screen isn't curved. Can I use the my existing screen material and just order the curved frame from Seymour screens?



If you want to go for a fixed curved frame and reuse your material, I'd recommend returning your material for us to trim and grommet, as this seems most efficient to do here at the shop.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## tydilee

Greetings Chris


Thanks for the reply and for the screen. I've had it for a year and just recently installed it but it was worth the wait. It's a great product and everyone who has seen it is very impressed. I'm doing things a little backward as I was always interested in a Schneider anamorphic lens but didn't want to commit to the expense without seeing one in action. This proved to be mission impossible in the UK hence I bought the flat screen 2.37 ratio hoping to use the zoom method. Then several months after I managed to find a retailer who had one in stock on demo and now I'm a believer as they say. Anyway, I was hoping I could just get a flat curved screen of roughly the same dimension but I'm assuming from your answer it's a little more complicated than I anticipated. Posting from and to the London UK might not be cost effective and I might be better of getting an entire new screen and material altogether. Is there no other option or way to use my existing screen material with a flat curved frame even if means a reduction or increase in size? What exactly is the problem? Is the trimming and grommet on a curved screen material different than that of a flat screen material? Thanks in advance for any advise you can give.


----------



## SherazNJ

Finally after putting a lot of hours, I was able to put the screen to the test yesterday. Its 141" wide and 164 high screen including borders. Excluding borders, its 134" wide and 57" high screen. The screen is almost hugging the side walls. When I was testing it, I saw the light being reflected back to the side walls, ceiling walls and the floor as well. It was visible enough. As of now, I don't have any Black Velvet fabric on the borders since I'm still waiting for the Velvet tape to arrive, but even if I were to install it on all the borders of screen, would it stop the reflection completely on the walls? If not then what is it I'd have to do to make sure no light is visible beyond the screen?

Thx.


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24015156
> 
> 
> This is what Dolby says about speaker positioning in commercial theatres, with diagrams:
> 
> http://jimmy.thomas.free.fr/DOC/cinema/Dolby-Atmos-Cinema-Technical-Guidelines.pdf
> 
> 
> Gary



Thank you for posting. I haven't visted an official recommendation like this in a long time...but I'm glad to see that I hadn't missed any changes. My paraphrased descriptions regarding aiming are almost identical in content to that descibed in the paragraph on aiming.


From past readings for which I cannot remember the source, the point of the higher than center positioning of the screen speakers was to place the acoustic center of the speakers where they would be in nominal association with on-screen spoken dialogue. I follow that logic in the home environment.


----------



## cw5billwade

We did nothing but watch movies this week.







My son came down from West VA and said no need to go to the theater anymore.







The sound from the Denon X4000 is just flat out the best I have heard and compares to the theaters for sure. The sound just comes right out of the AT screen and the sound image is in a word awesome. Every time my son who lives here in GA wants to watch a movie it has to be in 3D.







We just love our theater with my Seymour 125" wide AT 1.3 gain Center Stage screen with the Panasonic AE-8000 in 2D is amazing







and 3D is like right there in your face.







I have a 17' throw and sit 10'6" for first row and 16' for second row. I cannot see any weave










Thanks Chriss and Jon for all your help


----------



## Skylinestar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24021449
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting. I haven't visted an official recommendation like this in a long time...but I'm glad to see that I hadn't missed any changes. My paraphrased descriptions regarding aiming are almost identical in content to that descibed in the paragraph on aiming.
> 
> 
> From past readings for which I cannot remember the source, the point of the higher than center positioning of the screen speakers was to place the acoustic center of the speakers where they would be in nominal association with on-screen spoken dialogue. I follow that logic in the home environment.


Does that mean the dialog voice should be higher than the center of the screen?

It seems all the LCR are placed about 2/3, closer to the top of the screen. Does that mean the sound should come from the upper half of the screen? I'm not a pro in cinematography. Does that means majority of action are framed above the center of the screen?


----------



## bighvy76

I thought u were supposed to mount the tweeters at ear level while sitting?


----------



## rx-8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025246
> 
> 
> I thought u were supposed to mount the tweeters at ear level while sitting?



Ear level is perfect when you just have one row but centre of screen common if there are multiple rows. My existing room ear level is in the centre of the screen but I suspect that at the screen will be mounted higher in the new HT room.


-- Bill --


----------



## Skylinestar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025246
> 
> 
> I thought u were supposed to mount the tweeters at ear level while sitting?


That's for the typical audiophile setup.

For Dolby commercial theater setup, it's different. The sound is on the upper half of the screen.
 

(screenshot from the Dolby Atmos whitepaper)


How many of us have LCR placed at the upper half of the screen?

Is there a specific advantage of doing so? Sounds "bigger"







?


----------



## Skylinestar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rx-8*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025399
> 
> 
> Ear level is perfect when you just have one row but centre of screen common if there are multiple rows. My existing room ear level is in the center of the screen but I suspect that at the screen will be mounted higher in the new HT room.
> 
> 
> -- Bill --


I've read many articles saying that the general rule of thumb is eye level should be at 1/3 of the screen (from bottom) That means 33.3% is below the eye level and 66.6% is above the eye level. Why is that so? Why not the opposite (66.6% below the eye level)?


How do you like it with yours exactly at the center of the screen? Isn't that the best compare to the 1/3 rule?

Why did the majority place the screen higher than eye level if there's only 1 row of viewer?


----------



## bighvy76

That's how mine is placed...with my eye level on the bottom 1/3. It gives more of a theater effect. My speaker are at ear lever so my l.r.c. are below center line of screen. I think it sounds amazing I angled left and right towards the center of the room slightly.. I have only one row though. I'm using the center stage xd


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025215
> 
> 
> Does that mean the dialog voice should be higher than the center of the screen?
> 
> It seems all the LCR are placed about 2/3, closer to the top of the screen. Does that mean the sound should come from the upper half of the screen? I'm not a pro in cinematography. Does that means majority of action are framed above the center of the screen?



I'm only going to relate what is done at the professional/commercial cinema and why. You will have to decide whether the logic is sound and should be applied at home.


You don't have to be a pro cinematographer/camera operator to understand the logic behind the 2/3rds screen height placement of the acoustic center of speakers. It's not based on "action." It's based on people/dialogue localization. Think about a medium closeup. Where is the actor's head? In the top third. Even in a tight closeup where the actor's mouth will be nearer the bottom of the screen, you have to consider that much of the human voice comes not only from the mouth, but resonates through the sinuses and eminates from our faces near the mouth/nose. Therefore the 2/3rds screen height still works. But remember that all the sound also does not come from your tweeter/horn (unless you have a Tannoy model or JTR 212). The acoustic center of your speaker, as perceived from your viewing distance, will be (as described in the Dolby document) somewhat central between the tweeter and mid-range component(s). I would contend then that there is a "circle of perception" on the screen of the voice of each LCR that is maybe 1.5' in diameter, not a pinpoint. That's up for research, but that's my theory FWIW. Speakers with good directivity index will still localize highly precisely.


The image/graphic from Dolby is a little misleading in terms of scale of the size of the screen and each LCR stack. That would be like us using a little Bose satellite for LCRs.







Most of us have speakers that occupy a much larger piece of real estate behind the screen, so placing them such that the acoustic center is just above the center of the screen is pretty easy to achieve. I contend that the benefits are strong. Ear level for me at home would put the LCRs near the bottom of the screen. I would find that much more distracting when the speaking actor's head is some 40" above that (in trigonometry maybe 3-4 degrees higher than where the sound is coming from)...not good...at least for me and any professional cinema. Same goes for mixing stages (which are not giant cinemas).


On the other hand, that scale relationship we have at home between speaker size and screen size makes it quite easy. If the acoustic center of LCRs are at least at 1/2 screen height, then it will be indiscernible from 2/3rd screen height...ie "close enough."


One last comment: Since most of us will have a slight look-up angle from our seating position, the higher speaker location is "along" our viewing sightline. Even if the LCR is near the top of the screen or above it, the distraction will be less than if the LCR is too low or below the screen. And all of this is based on listening in a dark room so that there are no visual distraction cues about speaker locations. Of course that is a moot point if you're using an AT screen.


So, I guess that what I'm saying is that if I'm going to make the investment in a fine AT screen like Chris's, I'm gonna get ALL the benefit.


----------



## rx-8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025440
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rx-8*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025399
> 
> 
> Ear level is perfect when you just have one row but centre of screen common if there are multiple rows. My existing room ear level is in the center of the screen but I suspect that at the screen will be mounted higher in the new HT room.
> 
> 
> -- Bill --
> 
> 
> 
> I've read many articles saying that the general rule of thumb is eye level should be at 1/3 of the screen (from bottom) That means 33.3% is below the eye level and 66.6% is above the eye level. Why is that so? Why not the opposite (66.6% below the eye level)?
> 
> 
> How do you like it with yours exactly at the center of the screen? Isn't that the best compare to the 1/3 rule?
> 
> Why did the majority place the screen higher than eye level if there's only 1 row of viewer?
Click to expand...


I've also have read some articles that state that eye level should be 1/3 from the bottom of the screen but that may be better suited for commercial theatres with multiple seating rows and high ceilings. This is not practical for most HT enthusiasts due to our desire for large scenes and typically lower ceilings.


I have mount my screen mounted so that my eyes and ears are at mid screen due to height of the screen and the 7.5' ceiling. Since I only have one row of seating the compression drivers at ear level are perfect IMHO. I do like having everything at mid screen - no neck strain, great sound, and great picture. YMMV.


-- Bill --


----------



## Skylinestar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025541
> 
> 
> You don't have to be a pro cinematographer/camera operator to understand the logic behind the 2/3rds screen height placement of the acoustic center of speakers. It's not based on "action." It's based on people/dialogue localization. Think about a medium closeup. Where is the actor's head? In the top third.
> 
> 
> Even if the LCR is near the top of the screen or above it, the distraction will be less than if the LCR is too low or below the screen. And all of this is based on listening in a dark room so that there are no visual distraction cues about speaker locations.


For the typical non-AT screen user, placing the LCR above the screen is better than placing them below the screen?









 

Logic?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025541
> 
> 
> Since most of us will have a slight look-up angle from our seating position


^ Why did the majority have the slight look-up angle?


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025742
> 
> 
> For the typical non-AT screen user, placing the LCR above the screen is better than placing them below the screen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Why did the majority have the slight look-up angle?



I little off topic, but yes, IMO. Of course, each home environment may have unique issues and limitations (ceiling height, etc).


Typical single level front row seating height is about 30". The top of a front projection screen will be what, 5'-7'? I'd call that a slight look up angle, depending on your viewing distance, right?


----------



## bighvy76

On a side note the lower u Mount your screen the lower the projector has to hang down off the ceiling


----------



## Skylinestar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025802
> 
> 
> I little off topic, but yes, IMO. Of course, each home environment may have unique issues and limitations (ceiling height, etc).
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> 
> Typical single level front row seating height is about 30". The top of a front projection screen will be what, 5'-7'? I'd call that a slight look up angle, depending on your viewing distance, right?


Is 30" the seating height or eye level? If it's the seating/butt/ass height, the eye level will be another 2'higher. That brings the eye level about 4.5'. I'll call that slight look down angle if the top of the screen is about 5'-7'.


----------



## bighvy76

If u go to any movie theater u always have a slight look up. Unless u sit in the last few rows


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025871
> 
> 
> If u go to any movie theater u always have a slight look up. Unless u sit in the last few rows



That's my point. And, yes, ear/eyeball height is typically about 30".


----------



## bighvy76




----------



## bkeeler10




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025874
> 
> 
> That's my point. And, yes, ear/eyeball height is typically about 30".



That height actually seems a little low to me. My seated ear height on my couch is in the upper 30s (39" IIRC). Of course this will vary by a few inches, but 30" seems likely only if reclined. Maybe I'm unusually high.


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bkeeler10*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24027192
> 
> 
> That height actually seems a little low to me. My seated ear height on my couch is in the upper 30s (39" IIRC). Of course this will vary by a few inches, but 30" seems likely only if reclined. Maybe I'm unusually high.



You are so right. I don't know how I pulled that number from some scary place in my memory, but terribly wrong. Half-Zheimers, I suppose. Your number of 39-ish" is right...but doesn't affect the core of the discussion; we're still looking up a bit.


----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24025871
> 
> 
> If u go to any movie theater u always have a slight look up. Unless u sit in the last few rows


If you only have 1 row at home, you have the luxury if not having to look up. With my 7.5 foot ceilings it would be difficult to have people look up anyway. With one row, the center of the screen and the height of my high frequency compression drivers is right above ear level.


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedirun*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24027247
> 
> 
> If you only have 1 row at home, you have the luxury if not having to look up. With my 7.5 foot ceilings it would be difficult to have people look up anyway. With one row, the center of the screen and the height of my high frequency compression drivers is right above ear level.



That's a good point. It reminds me of the theater in the photos that I did a few years back in which it was desirable to have a somewhat stadium feel. We kept the second row a little high, and the screen positioned as low as possible but maintaining clear sightlines. It's kind of like forced perspective, but the illusion worked. The perspective of the camera lens makes the screen look smaller/narrower than it is in relation to the seating. Front row center has about a 40 degree HVA, as I remember. EDIT: It is 42 degrees HVA rather than 40 degrees. The luxury in this room was that it was pretty good size (about 21' x 16')...so we the walls and ceiling were a pretty good distance from the screen, therefore no significant retroreflection from them. Surfaces in close proximity are a great challenge...almost demanding a creative bat cave approach as suggested in the next post.


----------



## adude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24020832
> 
> 
> Finally after putting a lot of hours, I was able to put the screen to the test yesterday. Its 141" wide and 164 high screen including borders. Excluding borders, its 134" wide and 57" high screen. The screen is almost hugging the side walls. When I was testing it, I saw the light being reflected back to the side walls, ceiling walls and the floor as well. It was visible enough. As of now, I don't have any Black Velvet fabric on the borders since I'm still waiting for the Velvet tape to arrive, but even if I were to install it on all the borders of screen, would it stop the reflection completely on the walls? If not then what is it I'd have to do to make sure no light is visible beyond the screen?
> 
> Thx.



You need to mask the walls + ceiling near the screen. Take a look at this thread.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1465053/black-theater-improvment-thread-once-you-go-black-you-never-go-back


----------



## pgwalsh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24007380
> 
> 
> We'll simply continue replacing their holy screens while they keep patting themselves on the back.


Does this mean if we're religious, we should seriously consider Stewart screens since they're holy? J/K


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adude*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24028377
> 
> 
> You need to mask the walls + ceiling near the screen. Take a look at this thread.
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1465053/black-theater-improvment-thread-once-you-go-black-you-never-go-back


Thanks so much for the link. That's exactly what I was looking for.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2310#post_24020832
> 
> 
> Finally after putting a lot of hours, I was able to put the screen to the test yesterday. Its 141" wide and 164 high screen including borders. Excluding borders, its 134" wide and 57" high screen. The screen is almost hugging the side walls. When I was testing it, I saw the light being reflected back to the side walls, ceiling walls and the floor as well. It was visible enough. As of now, I don't have any Black Velvet fabric on the borders since I'm still waiting for the Velvet tape to arrive, but even if I were to install it on all the borders of screen, would it stop the reflection completely on the walls? If not then what is it I'd have to do to make sure no light is visible beyond the screen?
> 
> Thx.



The screens black boarders will not stop all those reflections on the side walls and ceiling. I once had my side walls and ceiling painted black flat and even that reflected the image in my bat cave. It really looks horrid with all those reflections over the walls and ceiling. In the end I covered the walls and ceiling in a black fabric similar to velvet, its wonderful now. It also increased the blacks of the image.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24033943
> 
> 
> The screens black boarders will not stop all those reflections on the side walls and ceiling. I once had my side walls and ceiling painted black flat and even that reflected the image in my bat cave. It really looks horrid with all those reflections over the walls and ceiling. In the end I covered the walls and ceiling in a black fabric similar to velvet, its wonderful now. It also increased the blacks of the image.



Yeah I found the whole tread dedicated to this point. Based on what I gathered so far, at least 5' of area should be covered around the screen. Royalty 3 Black Velvet seems to be favorite material to cover and absorb the light. I bought black cotton without knowing about black velvet. Yesterday I bought 14 yard of black velvet and putting velvet next to black cotton, it was obvious way it was preferred. That velvet is as black as it gets. Now in the middle of putting it around. I"ll post some pics when I'm done. A challenge will be to put it on the ceiling.


----------



## audioguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24035844
> 
> 
> A challenge will be to put it on the ceiling.



I will be doing the same thing. I plan to use 1/4 inch plywood in small pieces so I can handle it, use gaffers tape to hold the fabric to the back of the plywood and then "try" industrial velcro. I used the same stuff when I had RPG Skylines on my ceiling but a word of warning: STAPLE the velcro to the ceiling in addition to the very strong glue on the velcro. Otherwise, one day, a piece will fall.


I am still interested in other, safer" ideas on how to attach it!!


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audioguy*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2360_10#post_24036076
> 
> 
> I will be doing the same thing. I plan to use 1/4 inch plywood in small pieces so I can handle it, use gaffers tape to hold the fabric to the back of the plywood and then "try" industrial velcro. I used the same stuff when I had RPG Skylines on my ceiling but a word of warning: STAPLE the velcro to the ceiling in addition to the very strong glue on the velcro. Otherwise, one day, a piece will fall.
> 
> 
> I am still interested in other, safer" ideas on how to attach it!!



Why not bolt it to the joists? If you're going to all the trouble to glue & staple velcro to the panels & ceiling, it seems easier (and no less permanent/damaging to the ceiling) to put a couple of short lag bolts up into the joists.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audioguy*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24036076
> 
> 
> I will be doing the same thing. I plan to use 1/4 inch plywood in small pieces so I can handle it, use gaffers tape to hold the fabric to the back of the plywood and then "try" industrial velcro. I used the same stuff when I had RPG Skylines on my ceiling but a word of warning: STAPLE the velcro to the ceiling in addition to the very strong glue on the velcro. Otherwise, one day, a piece will fall.
> 
> 
> I am still interested in other, safer" ideas on how to attach it!!



That seems like a lot of work. I don't think we need to use plywood to cover whole area. Having one on each side (left/right) side of ceiling should do the trick. Then attach the velvet to the sheet and stretch it out from one side of wall to the other. Also I was thinking to use nail gun to hold sheet against the ceiling.


Googling on this topic, I came across an article that explains it. Here is the narrow version of it


1 - Use the stud finder to locate all ceiling joists and mark the locations.

2 - glue the pre-cut plywood in place using panel adhesive. Apply the adhesive to the plywood in a thin serpentine patterned line. Place plywood on the ceiling pushing up against the edge.

3 - Use the pneumatic nail gun to nail the plywood in place. Place the nails where you marked the ceiling joist.



That should do it.


I am also thinking of building a curve stage (a rather small one). Here is the way to do it
http://www.avsforum.com/t/869753/the-copperfields-cinema/60#post_11247083


----------



## electricmanscott

The picture is crappy but this is what I did. Velvet on 1/4" plywood with spray adhesive. Squirted some liquid nails on the back of the plywood, held it up with the furring strips, and shot some finish nails into the joists that are marked with the blue tape. Did 78" out from where the screen would be. The ceiling is painted flat black and next to the velvet it looks dark gray. There is absolutely zero reflection on the velvet and my screen is only 2" from the ceiling. It was a pain in the ass to do, partly because I was trying to do large panels, but well worth it.


----------



## SherazNJ

I bought plywood yesterday and had it cut into 40 inches long and 12 inches wide panels. Built about 10 panels with black fabric and will put them up tomorrow. I think using these panels, putting velvet will be a peace of cake on walls and ceilings. Using adhesive spray made it very easy to put velvet around these panels.


I am also building a small stage in front of the screen. I am using plywood and some wood to support it. It will be 6-8 inches high. I will leave the back side open since its not visible.

My subs are behind the screen. My only concern is if that stage is going to cause any issue with bass? Screen is AT.


----------



## bighvy76

Kind of off topic but why would u make a curved screen. What are the advantaged plus u have to get an "A" lense


----------



## audioguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24039622
> 
> 
> I bought plywood yesterday and had it cut into 40 inches long and 12 inches wide panels. Built about 10 panels with black fabric and will put them up tomorrow. I think using these panels, putting velvet will be a peace of cake on walls and ceilings. Using adhesive spray made it very easy to put velvet around these panels.
> 
> 
> I am also building a small stage in front of the screen. I am using plywood and some wood to support it. It will be 6-8 inches high. I will leave the back side open since its not visible.
> 
> My subs are behind the screen. My only concern is if that stage is going to cause any issue with bass? Screen is AT.



How will u attach to the ceiling?


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audioguy*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24044482
> 
> 
> How will u attach to the ceiling?



For ceiling, each panel is 12 inches wide and 2.5 feet long. I'll put two panels together to make a row of 5 feet long. Then I'll make three rows of panels. 1st on side, 2nd in the center and 3rd on other side. All the panels will be covered with black velvet. Then attach only one side of a panel (not the other). Then push the velvet under other side and then attach it. Repeat same on other side. This will cover all whole place.


----------



## audioguy

Did u use a nail gun? Screws?


----------



## MikeyD360

Deleted


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24044929
> 
> 
> For ceiling, each panel is 12 inches wide and 2.5 feet long. I'll put two panels together to make a row of 5 feet long. Then I'll make three rows of panels. 1st on side, 2nd in the center and 3rd on other side. All the panels will be covered with black velvet. Then attach only one side of a panel (not the other). Then push the velvet under other side and then attach it. Repeat same on other side. This will cover all whole place.


this discussion should bein a thread of it's own


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2340#post_24043551
> 
> 
> Kind of off topic but why would u make a curved screen. What are the advantaged plus u have to get an "A" lense



If not using an A-lens, and if the curvature is kept shallow enough - 40'R in our case - then the only remaining advantage with the XD or GW would be the increased sense of immersion. They simply look cool. Imax uses curved screens as part of their "maximum immersion" approach. They increase your mojo by several "sexy-magics," the official unit of measure according to Mr. Hunt.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## SherazNJ

I am having pixel problem with my new screen. I can see many small black dots specially when there is a white background. I am trying to figure out if its the material or the distance or some setting in the projector that is causing it.


I switched to Seymour from Steward Studio 130 screen that has 1.3 gain. My previous screen is 130" 16:9 ratio and I never saw any sign of pixel on it. This new Seymour screen that I built myself is 23.5:1 ratio and is Acoustic Transparent with 1.2 gain. Sitting distance with new screen is 13 feet. One main differene between the installation is the distance. Since previous screen was not Acoustic transparent, it was sitting on the wall. My new screen is Acoustic transparent and therefore I put all my speakers behind it which made me move my sceeen 40 inches forward. I didn't change projector location.


Projector: Sony VPL-95ES. Hours on lamp around 600.

Previous Screen Projector Distance = 18.4 feet.

New Screen Projector Distance = 15 feet.


Previous Screen Size: 130" 16:9 ratio

New Screen Size: 145" 23.5:1 ratio


According to the this site that calculates the distance based on given ratio
http://www.projectorcentral.com/Sony-VPL-VW95ES-projection-calculator-pro.htm 


previous 16:9 should have been around 15"10" feet new 23.5:1 should be around 18'9". So My current screen is about 4 feet closer than recommended distance. Is this distance causing the pixel issue?


Have any of you had this issue?


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24051598
> 
> 
> I am having pixel problem with my new screen. I can see many small black dots specially when there is a white background. I am trying to figure out if its the material or the distance or some setting in the projector that is causing it.
> 
> 
> I switched to Seymour from Steward Studio 130 screen that has 1.3 gain. My previous screen is 130" 16:9 ratio and I never saw any sign of pixel on it. This new Seymour screen that I built myself is 23.5:1 ratio and is Acoustic Transparent with 1.2 gain. Sitting distance with new screen is 13 feet. One main differene between the installation is the distance. Since previous screen was not Acoustic transparent, it was sitting on the wall. My new screen is Acoustic transparent and therefore I put all my speakers behind it which made me move my sceeen 40 inches forward. I didn't change projector location.
> 
> 
> Projector: Sony VPL-95ES. Hours on lamp around 600.
> 
> Previous Screen Projector Distance = 18.4 feet.
> 
> New Screen Projector Distance = 15 feet.
> 
> 
> Previous Screen Size: 130" 16:9 ratio
> 
> New Screen Size: 145" 23.5:1 ratio
> 
> 
> According to the this site that calculates the distance based on given ratio
> http://www.projectorcentral.com/Sony-VPL-VW95ES-projection-calculator-pro.htm
> 
> 
> previous 16:9 should have been around 15"10" feet new 23.5:1 should be around 18'9". So My current screen is about 4 feet closer than recommended distance. Is this distance causing the pixel issue?
> 
> 
> Have any of you had this issue?


I would say the small holes of perforation vise the weave is one reason the information you did not provide is your actual seating distance. I am a 10'6" to a 125" wide screen and I do not perceive any weave. At 16’ in my second row the screen is less grainy if that makes sense. Now I say that based on not having any other point of reference. You are used to watching a different surface. Why 40” screen wall? That is really big. If it is due to Subwoofers than see if you can put them on each side and then move the screen back to cover only the LCRs. FWIW


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24052127
> 
> 
> I would say the small holes of perforation vise the weave is one reason the information you did not provide is your actual seating distance. I am a 10'6" to a 125" wide screen and I perceive any weave. At 16’ in my second row the screen is less grainy if that makes sense. Now I say that based on not having any other point of reference. You are used to watching a different surface. Why 40” screen wall? That is really big. If it is due to Subwoofers than see if you can put them on each side and then move the screen back to cover only the LCRs. FWIW



I updated the post with actual distance. I'm sitting at 13' of distance.


> Quote:
> I am a 10'6" to a 125" wide screen and I perceive any weave.


Sorry I didn't get it. Do you perceive or you don't?


> Quote:
> You are used to watching a different surface


Yes but no surface should make the pixels visible. Wouldn't you agree. I understand that my previous is superior in quality as compared to this one but I don't think anybody would accept a screen that will display these black dots. I don't know how it'd look if weave is visible. When you say weave is visible, do you see pixel size black dots?


> Quote:
> Why 40” screen wall



That's because the distance from wall to wall (left to right) is 142 and I decided to utilize it as much as possible. I have 3.5 inches border for screen. So for two borders (left and right) its 7 inches

142- 7 = 135. I ended up build a screen of 134 inches wide. This gives me no access to go back and therefore I build the base with a piano hinge that allows me to lift up the front side and crawl back. Therefore, I need some space to crawl in. Also this allows me to place my side speakers in an arch and have the acoustic panels on walls to absorb first reflection.


----------



## cw5billwade

I watched Avatar in 3D this weekend and the color and 3D was amazing. These pictures are with my cell phone through my left lens on 3rd generation glasses. Panasonic AE-8000 PJ set to normal with fan in normal.


----------



## SherazNJ

These images are too dark to tell if you had any black dots. I don't see any dots in scenes with colors as well. It's when its a white fore ground or blue background. A scene where the face is in focus has no black dots but a face about 10 feet away has some indications. A view of sky has visibility of dots. A person wearing white shirt has black dots visibility.


----------



## cw5billwade

I have some more screen shots in my DYI build in my Signature


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24052698
> 
> 
> I have some more screen shots in my DYI build in my Signature



I checked the images and the one where and old man face is in focus has same issue. Look the the background there. I see small dots in the background. That's what I'm referring to. I don't see that in Steward StudioTek screen.


----------



## SherazNJ

Here is the perfect way to explain the issue


> Quote:
> sparkles on the screen. It is very noticeable on large white portions on the image.



Do you guys face the same issue?


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24052803
> 
> 
> I checked the images and the one where and old man face is in focus has same issue. Look the the background there. I see small dots in the background. That's what I'm referring to. I don't see that in Steward StudioTek screen.


That is the difference between a perforated and weave screen. Some people are more sensitive to it than others as I stated earlyer since I have no point of refference it does not bother me. I do not precerive any grain or black spots. I do if I am within a few feet of the screen. Was 13 ft the original distance? Did you move the chairs back 40" to accommodate the same viewing distance? Did you tilt the material 10 degrees like recommended when you made the screen? It is hard for me to believe you see the weave from 13ft. I guess you are more sensitive to it than most.


Old man! dude that is fringing Clint Eastwood!


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Was 13 ft the original distance?


Original distance of what? If you are referring to sitting distance then I was sitting 3 feet closer from where I am now. Yes I did move from original distance. But I didn't move the projector. What happens to image when the projector is closer than it is supposed to be? Projector should be mounted 18 feet from screen but its at 15 right now. I don't want to un-mount it if that's not going to fix the issue.


> Quote:
> Did you tilt the material 10 degrees like recommended when you made the screen


I had it cut from them. I don't know anything about 10 degrees tilt. What is this all about? what angle should it be tilted? Is it from top to bottom or bottom to top or left to right or right to left?

thanks.


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24053505
> 
> 
> Original distance of what? If you are referring to sitting distance then I was sitting 3 feet closer from where I am now. Yes I did move from original distance. But I didn't move the projector. What happens to image when the projector is closer than it is supposed to be? Projector should be mounted 18 feet from screen but its at 15 right now. I don't want to un-mount it if that's not going to fix the issue.


yes I was talking seating distance. I am tracking now you are at 13’ from the screen. I can see how the projector could cause the issue the closer you are the brighter the image will be. Further back means better gain. Maybe the image is so bright the weave is actually having shadows if that even makes sense. If you could run a test by moving PJ back to 18’ you may need to bring Blue Ray player or something into the room with HDMI cable I think I would test before I reinstalled the mount.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24053505
> 
> 
> I had it cut from them. I don't know anything about 10 degrees tilt. What is this all about? what angle should it be tilted? Is it from top to bottom or bottom to top or left to right or right to left?thanks.


Mine was cut by them as well. They say the inside of the roll is supposed to be toward the PJ so there is really only one way to hang it. They also said that the back side or outside of roll was equally acceptable as a viewing surface. If they cut it than it is correct.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> yes I was talking seating distance. I am tracking now you are at 13’ from the screen. I can see how the projector could cause the issue the closer you are the brighter the image will be. Further back means better gain. Maybe the image is so bright the weave is actually having shadows if that even makes sense. If you could run a test by moving PJ back to 18’ you may need to bring Blue Ray player or something into the room with HDMI cable I think I would test before I reinstalled the mount.



Yes that's what I need to do. I don't need to move Blue Ray player. My HDMI cable is 15 feet long .


> Quote:
> Mine was cut by them as well. They say the inside of the roll is supposed to be toward the PJ so there is really only one way to hang it. They also said that the back side or outside of roll was equally acceptable as a viewing surface. If they cut it than it is correct.



I"m also using inside of the roll. Another point one of my friend pointed out is the use of Millibel A.T. Basically its a black cloth that is A.T and blocks light hitting back. Do you have it installed behind your screen?


----------



## bighvy76

I was told the front and back if the roll were the same.with the xd material


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24053846
> 
> 
> I was told the front and back if the roll were the same.with the xd material


I was told of same thing. When the roll arrived, I couldn't distinguish either side and was confused with which one to go with. Then I decided to use the side that is inside of roll thinking they wouldn't expose the side outside be touched by hands.


----------



## Expat444




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24053863
> 
> 
> I was told of same thing. When the roll arrived, I couldn't distinguish either side and was confused with which one to go with. Then I decided to use the side that is inside of roll thinking they wouldn't expose the side outside be touched by hands.


I checked as well as I wanted to make sure I didn't mess it up and was told that either side is fine but the inside of the roll is the prefered one.


----------



## audioguy

The "outside" of my XD screen and some imperfections on it. The inside (facing the tube) was perfect.


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24053794
> 
> 
> Yes that's what I need to do. I don't need to move Blue Ray player. My HDMI cable is 15 feet long .
> 
> I"m also using inside of the roll. Another point one of my friend pointed out is the use of Millibel A.T. Basically its a black cloth that is A.T and blocks light hitting back. Do you have it installed behind your screen?


I covered the acoustic mineral wool on my screen wall with a black material and speakers are black so in a way yes but not directly on screen Seymour sells the material you are talking about


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24053846
> 
> 
> I was told the front and back if the roll were the same.with the xd material





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Expat444*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24053942
> 
> 
> I checked as well as I wanted to make sure I didn't mess it up and was told that either side is fine but the inside of the roll is the prefered one.


What they said was the inside is QCed and is without imperfections. They do not chek outside


----------



## SherazNJ

After getting home I tried all the options. First I took my ps3 and hooked it up to tv to see if a 1080p would do the same. It turns out that even on TV its the same. Basically these small dots are pixels that become more visible when either the screen size is increased or one gets closer to screen.


To make sure that this new screen is not reducing the image quality in terms of pixels, I compared it with StudioTek 130. I didn't find any difference. Then I asked my wife to see if she can see any difference. She noted that StudioTek image is brighter but the pixels are there equally in both. Its understandable that StuidioTek should be brighter. Its first of all smaller that new screen and also has more gain (1.3 vs 1.2).


Then I put the new screen back and asked her to pay close attention and see if anything changes. Then I stared increasing the projector distance. I had projector sitting on a big box and was moving box away from its original location. She noticed the difference. It turned out that when I had projector only 15 feet away, it wasn't as good. When it was moved to 20 feet, the image got better.


So the conclusion:

1 - The dots were basically pixels that become more obvious in background scene. Anything in focus has no pixel issue (same in TV).

2 - Moving projector 5 feet away from the its current location made it better.


Can you guys see if you also see this effect specially in background?


----------



## deromax

I think that you may be seeing compression artifacts. This produces blockiness in the dark and black area of the picture. The visibility of this may be worsened by too high Brightness setting and/or too high Sharpness setting. You may also look for a setting called MPEG noise reducer or mosquito noise reducer in your source and/or projector menu, and enable this and see if you like the result.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24056165
> 
> 
> I think that you may be seeing compression artifacts. This produces blockiness in the dark and black area of the picture. The visibility of this may be worsened by too high Brightness setting and/or too high Sharpness setting. You may also look for a setting called MPEG noise reducer or mosquito noise reducer in your source and/or projector menu, and enable this and see if you like the result.



You nailed it sir. This is the exact issue I'm/was having. Its this Noise that I needed to reduce. I didn't have a very high brightness/sharpness. Brightness is at 52 and sharpness at 11. I found MPEG noise reducer and it was off. Maxed it out and made a good difference. Looks much better. Also moving projector four feet from its currnet location to 4 feet behind made a good difference.

I there any external device that can complete get rid of this noise. I know 4K eventually will get rid of this. What about Darbee?


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24056625
> 
> 
> I there any external device that can complete get rid of this noise. I know 4K eventually will get rid of this. What about Darbee?



4K will not get rid of compression artifacts. If anything, it will make them worse as it will have to be compressed even more to fit in a given bandwidth. This is the same reason iTunes stuck with 720p videos for so long.


----------



## cw5billwade

This is the main reason I purchase Blue Ray disks and play them on my Panasonic BDT 500 Blue Ray Disk player. It also does a good job of up converting DVD to 1080P 24. It makes no sense to me to try and play a DVD that is ripped to a hard drive on a $3k projector through a $1200 AVR. Now back to your regularly scheduled Seymour thread.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24056984
> 
> 
> This is the main reason I purchase Blue Ray disks and play them on my Panasonic BDT 500 Blue Ray Disk player. It also does a good job of up converting DVD to 1080P 24. It makes no sense to me to try and play a DVD that is ripped to a hard drive on a $3k projector through a $1200 AVR. Now back to your regularly scheduled Seymour thread.



A DVD or Bluray for that matter are exactly the same ripped to the hard drive or played from the disc, nothing changes. You can if you want compress the file to save hard dive space but you don't have to.


----------



## cw5billwade

I guess it depends on what software you use. Ripping Blue Ray to disk would fill your hard drive in a hurry without compression would it not?


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24057079
> 
> 
> I guess it depends on what software you use. Ripping Blue Ray to disk would fill your hard drive in a hurry without compression would it not?



That is why I have a 16TB server that I store them all on










No compression here or having to search for a disc, all of them at the click of a button.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2370#post_24056625
> 
> 
> You nailed it sir. This is the exact issue I'm/was having. Its this Noise that I needed to reduce. I didn't have a very high brightness/sharpness. Brightness is at 52 and sharpness at 11. I found MPEG noise reducer and it was off. Maxed it out and made a good difference. Looks much better. Also moving projector four feet from its currnet location to 4 feet behind made a good difference.
> 
> I there any external device that can complete get rid of this noise. I know 4K eventually will get rid of this. What about Darbee?



If you have your sharpness too high it will add artefact's, you then don't want to add noise reducers to get rid of it, that softens the image to hide noise. Having your sharpness at 11 seems way to high to me. You should be using a calibration disc like Spears and Munsil or DVE to set sharpness correctly, and I'm sure when you do so your setting may end up closer to "0"


Woven fabric should also be turned 10% to 15% to prevent any moiré pattern, my Seymour AT fabric is turned. I also have the back wall behind the screen covered in black felt to reduce and reflections. I also made sure they were no shiny bits on the speakers that might reflect back through the weave, screws etc I painted out with black flat.


My front row is approx. 10/11' from my 145" scope Seymour AT screen, I see no black dots, no pixels, the image is perfect!


----------



## pgwalsh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24058966
> 
> 
> Woven fabric should also be turned 10% to 15% to prevent any moiré pattern, my Seymour AT fabric is turned.



I don't understand what turned 10% to 15% means, would you mind elaborating?


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pgwalsh*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24059017
> 
> 
> I don't understand what turned 10% to 15% means, would you mind elaborating?



Its on the Seymour website and most others who sell AT screens. It only costs $35/45 to add the extra fabric to do so, a must I say!


Moiré

http://www.seymourav.com/screensDIY.asp


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24058966
> 
> 
> If you have your sharpness too high it will add artefact's, you then don't want to add noise reducers to get rid of it, that softens the image to hide noise. Having your sharpness at 11 seems way to high to me. You should be using a calibration disc like Spears and Munsil or DVE to set sharpness correctly, and I'm sure when you do so your setting may end up closer to "0"
> 
> 
> Woven fabric should also be turned 10% to 15% to prevent any moiré pattern, my Seymour AT fabric is turned. I also have the back wall behind the screen covered in black felt to reduce and reflections. I also made sure they were no shiny bits on the speakers that might reflect back through the weave, screws etc I painted out with black flat.
> 
> 
> My front row is approx. 10/11' from my 145" scope Seymour AT screen, I see no black dots, no pixels, the image is perfect!



Ok you have my full attention now since you don't see any black dots. To be clear we are talking about the effect that are visible in this image
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1495884/lightbox/post/23860294/id/296871 

Please look at the back ground wall right behind the person specially the shadow areas. You'll see all the dots visible there and that's what I get.


> Quote:
> If you have your sharpness too high it will add artefact's, you then don't want to add noise reducers to get rid of it, that softens the image to hide noise. Having your sharpness at 11 seems way to high to me



I had my projector calibrated professionally on StudioTek 130. He calibrated it to 11 Sharpness. This sharpness is too high for this screen?


> Quote:
> You should be using a calibration disc like Spears and Munsil or DVE to set sharpness correctly


Ordered this one.
http://www.amazon.com/Spears-Munsil-Benchmark-Calibration-Edition/dp/B00CKWI13O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386732271&sr=8-1&keywords=spears+calibration 


> Quote:
> Woven fabric should also be turned 10% to 15% to prevent any moiré pattern, my Seymour AT fabric is turned


I had it cut from them and I believe when they cut it, they make sure of this. Here is the link where they mentioned it and I paid $45.00 for this cut http://www.seymourav.com/screensDIY.asp 


> Quote:
> I also made sure they were no shiny bits on the speakers that might reflect back through the weave, screws etc I painted out with black flat.



My back wall is abour 39 inches away from the screen. That wall is painted dark grey. All of my speakers are covered with black grill. I am also planning to put black fabric to absorb all light from reflecting back. Does it help in getting some more gain or it just prevents reflection?


> Quote:
> My front row is approx. 10/11' from my 145" scope Seymour AT screen, I see no black dots, no pixels, the image is perfect!


[/QUOTE]


I am sitting 13" from 134" 2.35 screen. I see black dots. I'm very jealous but also very happy because I think you might be able to help me out getting rid of it . To be clear, I don't see pixels on anything that is in focus. They are visible in background just like that image. Can you please take a shot of a scene that has some darker background to show how clear your image is?


Also someone mentioned that increasing projector distance from screen won't make any difference to fix this issue. Is that correct. I was trying it and it felt like it made a difference. Could it be the light difference or something that made image look better when projector was moved back?

Thanks


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400_10#post_24059357
> 
> 
> I am sitting 13" from 134" 2.35 screen. I see black dots. I'm very jealous but also very happy because I think you might be able to help me out getting rid of it . To be clear, I don't see pixels on anything that is in focus. They are visible in background just like that image. Can you please take a shot of a scene that has some darker background to show how clear your image is?



I'm not sure I understand what you are seeing. I don't see any "black dots" in the Clint Eastwood image you linked. I see what might be film grain, or possibly compression artifacts. It's hard to tell with a low-res, static image like that one.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24059410
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you are seeing. I don't see any "black dots" in the Clint Eastwood image you linked. I see what might be film grain, or possibly compression artifacts. It's hard to tell with a low-res, static image like that one.


I don't know the right term but that's what I see. RapalloAV said that he has crystal clear image. That's why I asked him if he can post the image so that we can see what clear image means. Would you call Clint Eastwood image a crystal clear image? I'll post a few images shortly to show what I'm getting.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24059357
> 
> 
> Ok you have my full attention now since you don't see any black dots. To be clear we are talking about the effect that are visible in this image
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1495884/lightbox/post/23860294/id/296871
> 
> Please look at the back ground wall right behind the person specially the shadow areas. You'll see all the dots visible there and that's what I get.
> 
> I had my projector calibrated professionally on StudioTek 130. He calibrated it to 11 Sharpness. This sharpness is too high for this screen?
> 
> Ordered this one.
> http://www.amazon.com/Spears-Munsil-Benchmark-Calibration-Edition/dp/B00CKWI13O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386732271&sr=8-1&keywords=spears+calibration
> 
> I had it cut from them and I believe when they cut it, they make sure of this. Here is the link where they mentioned it and I paid $45.00 for this cut http://www.seymourav.com/screensDIY.asp
> 
> My back wall is abour 39 inches away from the screen. That wall is painted dark grey. All of my speakers are covered with black grill. I am also planning to put black fabric to absorb all light from reflecting back. Does it help in getting some more gain or it just prevents reflection?



I am sitting 13" from 134" 2.35 screen. I see black dots. I'm very jealous but also very happy because I think you might be able to help me out getting rid of it . To be clear, I don't see pixels on anything that is in focus. They are visible in background just like that image. Can you please take a shot of a scene that has some darker background to show how clear your image is?


Also someone mentioned that increasing projector distance from screen won't make any difference to fix this issue. Is that correct. I was trying it and it felt like it made a difference. Could it be the light difference or something that made image look better when projector was moved back?

Thanks[/quote]


1. I see no black dots in that image,I see film grain. Plus the image is too small to even tell. I think you are getting confused with the terms you are using.

2. I don't care what your professional calibrator set the sharpness control to, Im absolutely sure that +11 will add artefacts. You need a BD calibration disc and do the sharpness test yourself.

3. S&M disc ordered Good!

4. Moiré cut paid for, good.

5. Black behind screen doesn't give you more gain it stops reflections.

6. Of course you will see pixels/black dots of the holes sitting 13" from the screen, I do too, but who watches a 140" screen 13" away from it.

7. I have a JVC X95 there are no pixels with e-shift.

8. I cant take a picture to prove to you something that doesn't exist on a Seymour AT screen.


Get rid of all the processing on that projector, turn all that junk off and look at the images again, I guarantee they will go. Turn sharpness to "0", turn all that image processing to "0", noise reduction etc etc etc.... When you evaluate an image you must have all that stuff off, its junk and it will add heaps of noise to the image. I believe you are viewing noise due to excessive settings you have on your projector or BD player.


Even I get image noise on the top model JVC if I have too much video processing going on, that's totally normal.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> I am sitting 13" from 134" 2.35 screen. I see black dots. I'm very jealous but also very happy because I think you might be able to help me out getting rid of it . To be clear, I don't see pixels on anything that is in focus. They are visible in background just like that image. Can you please take a shot of a scene that has some darker background to show how clear your image is?
> 
> 
> Also someone mentioned that increasing projector distance from screen won't make any difference to fix this issue. Is that correct. I was trying it and it felt like it made a difference. Could it be the light difference or something that made image look better when projector was moved back?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 1. I see no black dots in that image,I see film grain. Plus the image is too small to even tell. I think you are getting confused with the terms you are using.
> 
> 2. I don't care what your professional calibrator set the sharpness control to, Im absolutely sure that +11 will add artefacts. You need a BD calibration disc and do the sharpness test yourself.
> 
> 3. S&M disc ordered Good!
> 
> 4. Moiré cut paid for, good.
> 
> 5. Black behind screen doesn't give you more gain it stops reflections.
> 
> 6. Of course you will see pixels/black dots of the holes sitting 13" from the screen, I do too, but who watches a 140" screen 13" away from it.
> 
> 7. I have a JVC X95 there are no pixels with e-shift.
> 
> 8. I cant take a picture to prove to you something that doesn't exist on a Seymour AT screen.
> 
> 
> Get rid of all the processing on that projector, turn all that junk off and look at the images again, I guarantee they will go. Turn sharpness to "0", turn all that image processing to "0", noise reduction etc etc etc.... When you evaluate an image you must have all that stuff off, its junk and it will add heaps of noise to the image. I believe you are viewing noise due to excessive settings you have on your projector or BD player.
> 
> 
> Even I get image noise on the top model JVC if I have too much video processing going on, that's totally normal.



I didn't meant to write 13". Yes that would be crazy. I sit 13 Feet from screen. I turned sharpness to 4 and took images thru phone but it didn't capture it. I'm going to turn all the features off and see what it does. By all features I mean.

1 - Turn Auto IRIS off

2 - Turn sharpness to 0

3 - Turn off MPEG noise reducer and mosquito noise reducer


The contrast is set to 87 and I don't know if its too high. I never played with these settings since I paid good 350.00 to the calibrator :-(. I should have learned all these features and what their right value is.


> Quote:
> I see no black dots in that image,I see film grain. Plus the image is too small to even tell. I think you are getting confused with the terms you are using.



Ok then that's what it is. Film grain. As I said before as well that I don't see any of this effect to the focus objects in the image but only in background. For example, in a scene where a person's face is the main focus of image, I don't see absolutely anything on the face and it is crystal clear but in the background I do see film grains.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24059641
> 
> 
> I didn't meant to write 13". Yes that would be crazy. I sit 13 Feet from screen. I turned sharpness to 4 and took images thru phone but it didn't capture it. I'm going to turn all the features off and see what it does. By all features I mean.
> 
> 1 - Turn Auto IRIS off
> 
> 2 - Turn sharpness to 0
> 
> 3 - Turn off MPEG noise reducer and mosquito noise reducer
> 
> 
> The contrast is set to 87 and I don't know if its too high. I never played with these settings since I paid good 350.00 to the calibrator :-(. I should have learned all these features and what their right value is.
> 
> Ok then that's what it is. Film grain. As I said before as well that I don't see any of this effect to the focus objects in the image but only in background. For example, in a scene where a person's face is the main focus of image, I don't see absolutely anything on the face and it is crystal clear but in the background I do see film grains.



When you get the S&M disc you will be able to set the contrast and brightness correctly. Contrast set to 87 sounds very odd to me. I would go into the menu of the projector and set everything to the default settings and take a look, your calibrated settings are no good anyway with the new screen. Turn all video processing to off and evaluate the image then.


If you have a close-up of a face that's in focus and the background is out of focus that's where film grain would be more obvious. 35MM film produced film grain, its been on film since the silent error, its nothing new. If you have a good projector and screen you will see film grain.


Todays digital images are not 35MM film so they can look cleaner as they don't have the grain that is in film. Some digitally shot films produce an artificial film grain as they want the feel to have an older "film like" look. You must have seen the artificially added film scratches to digital films they want to make look really old.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> When you get the S&M disc you will be able to set the contrast and brightness correctly. Contrast set to 87 sounds very odd to me. I would go into the menu of the projector and set everything to the default settings and take a look, your calibrated settings are no good anyway with the new screen. Turn all video processing to off and evaluate the image then.
> 
> 
> If you have a close-up of a face that's in focus and the background is out of focus that's where film grain would be more obvious. 35MM film produced film grain, its been on film since the silent error, its nothing new. If you have a good projector and screen you will see film grain.
> 
> 
> Todays digital images are not 35MM film so they can look cleaner as they don't have the grain that is in film. Some digitally shot films produce an artificial film grain as they want the feel to have an older "film like" look. You must have seen the artificially added film scratches to digital films they want to make look really old.



I started playing around with settings and when I turned contrast to 50, it took a lot of that film grain away. I'm using The Dark Knight for testing. I don't know if it is supposed to have grain. Can you recommend any movie that is good for testing and doesn't have grain effect?


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24059756
> 
> 
> I started playing around with settings and when I turned contrast to 50, it took a lot of that film grain away. I'm using The Dark Knight for testing. I don't know if it is supposed to have grain. Can you recommend any movie that is good for testing and doesn't have grain effect?



Great Gatsby doesn't have any film grain. Please set the projector back to the default settings, and get all video processing to "0" as the default settings will have some video processing turned on. Most purists all say sharpness must be set to "0".

Sharpness is the worst contributor to enhancing film grain, if you want it softer it must be turned down.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

Why not just stick a piece of white paper on the screen where you are "seeing dots" and see if they go away? If they are still their it has nothing to do with the screen, which would be my guess.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24059833
> 
> 
> Great Gatsby doesn't have any film grain. Please set the projector back to the default settings, and get all video processing to "0" as the default settings will have some video processing turned on. Most purists all say sharpness must be set to "0".
> 
> Sharpness is the worst contributor to enhancing film grain, if you want it softer it must be turned down.



Will do it tonight to see how that goes. Now I'm wondering if Darby is also going to screw things up ?????? I ordered one a week ago and its arriving tomorrow.


----------



## chriscmore

If the film grain or pixel-level details bother you, I'd recommend not getting a Darbee. While it does increase apparent resolution - turning a 5 o'clock shadow into a 5 o'clock stubble, for example - I find if it's up more than 35-40, it produces a very grainy look. People's skin looks like sandpaper, so I keep mine dialed down. But not to turn this into a Darbee discussion...


Agreed, put a piece of paper over offending areas and see if the effect goes away. If not it's a calibration issue. If so, it can be the screen and it's possible a woven screen doesn't suit your needs.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Agreed, put a piece of paper over offending areas and see if the effect goes away.



This issue is all over screen. How big of a piece of pare do I need? An A4 paper seems to be very small.Are you recommending to buy a very big piece of white paper to cover at least half of screen and see if it still shows film grain.


> Quote:
> If not it's a calibration issue


So in other words, paper should take away the film gains. If it doesn't take away then it means that effect is coming due to projector settings (calibration). If it does go away then projector is fine and its the screen issue.

I highly doubt it if its screen issue since it does the same on my StudioTek 130 screen and I think StudioTek130 is considered one of the best material.


But this is a great test to figure out where the issue lies. Can you please recommend what paper size should be used to see. I also have dark grey painted walls. I can project on that as well if that'd do the same job as paper?


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24060808
> 
> 
> This issue is all over screen. How big of a piece of pare do I need? An A4 paper seems to be very small.Are you recommending to buy a very big piece of white paper to cover at least half of screen and see if it still shows film grain.
> 
> So in other words, paper should take away the film gains. If it doesn't take away then it means that effect is coming due to projector settings (calibration). If it does go away then projector is fine and its the screen issue.
> 
> I highly doubt it if its screen issue since it does the same on my StudioTek 130 screen and I think StudioTek130 is considered one of the best material.
> 
> 
> But this is a great test to figure out where the issue lies. Can you please recommend what paper size should be used to see. I also have dark grey painted walls. I can project on that as well if that'd do the same job as paper?



No just a regular piece of paper hold up to an area where you are seeing the dots. If they are still on the paper well then its not the screen.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mopar_Mudder*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24060825
> 
> 
> No just a regular piece of paper hold up to an area where you are seeing the dots. If they are still on the paper well then its not the screen.


Makes sense. I"ll try it today and will let you guys know how it went. I'm really hoping to see the dots on paper . That means its the projector settings and we can get rid of it by adjusting it..

By the way what contrast do you guys set on your projector?


----------



## bighvy76

Contrast 45 on w1070 benq


----------



## deromax

Any Pixar animated movies will have no grain. If you don't see the pixels that are bothering you with one of those, then your setup is probably OK. You might just happen to not like film grain. Since it's part of movies for the last century, I'd recommend that you learn to like it! DVD hasn't the available resolution to show the grain properly, so it was "washed out" at the authoring stage. Blu-ray have greater resolution, so whatever is on the original film comes out loud and clear!


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24061292
> 
> 
> Contrast 45 on w1070 benq


that's way below from mine.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24061328
> 
> 
> Any Pixar animated movies will have no grain. If you don't see the pixels that are bothering you with one of those, then your setup is probably OK. You might just happen to not like film grain. Since it's part of movies for the last century, I'd recommend that you learn to like it! DVD hasn't the available resolution to show the grain properly, so it was "washed out" at the authoring stage. Blu-ray have greater resolution, so whatever is on the original film comes out loud and clear!



I did watch a clip of Finding Nemo and there is no sign of grains there. The image was crystal clear (the way I like it).


----------



## SherazNJ

Found out something very interesting from a post.


> Quote:
> Video noise is a transfer artifact whereby excessive noise is added to a picture that wasn't there on the source. A good way to identify video noise is that it often clusters around certain objects in a frame but not the rest of the shot. Real film grain wouldn't do that.



I pointed out before that in my case, the image in focus has no issues but its the surrounding that has it. So if the above statement is true, I"m not having film grain but rather a video noise.


----------



## bighvy76




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24061385
> 
> 
> that's way below from mine.


  this is for my projector but both of the settings I have saved have the contrast about 45


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24061397
> 
> 
> I did watch a clip of Finding Nemo and there is no sign of grains there. The image was crystal clear (the way I like it).



I kept telling you it was film grain especially if you had the same effect on the AT screen and the non AT screen. Get those projector settings as I told you to that only takes 1 minute, running round getting bits of paper is a waste of time. Its the setting on your projector, they are up too high!!!


Film grain has been there for a 100 years, live with it, you did when you went to the cinema!


I have a Darbee with my setup, set to 45 its perfect.


Please just change those projector settings and lets move on, time to get this thread back to Seymour screens.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24061454
> 
> 
> I kept telling you it was film grain especially if you had the same effect on the AT screen and the non AT screen. Get those projector settings as I told you to that only takes 1 minute, running round getting bits of paper is a waste of time. Its the setting on your projector, they are up too high!!!
> 
> 
> Film grain has been there for a 100 years, live with it, you did when you went to the cinema!
> 
> 
> I have a Darbee with my setup, set to 45 its perfect.
> 
> 
> Please just change those projector settings and lets move on, time to get this thread back to Seymour screens.



Agreed. Will do. Thanks everybody for your suggestions. That did help a lot.


----------



## SherazNJ

This post is just to sum up my finding in case those who read will also know what caused the issue in the first place.

First, I wanted to eliminate the possibility of screen issue. I bought a white board (3 feet wide and 2 feet height). Projected on it and there it is again. That confirmed that its not the screen.

Now I needed to know if its projector settings or the movie effect. I recently rented Hobbits in 3D. So I thought that'd be a good test to play on this new Seymour AT screen. Woooow what a beautiful image. Absolutely stunning. I even had contrast on 87 with sharpness to 11 and not a single grain. Absolutely crystal clear image. So that made it obvious that its the movie that was produced that way. But then I was watching 3D and wanted to make sure that it's not only in 3D that I get to see this crystal clear picture. So I started looking my blue ray collection and found Planet Earth episodes. As soon as I played that one, the first word that came out of my mouth was WWWAAOOOOOO. The image was so crystal clear that I almost wanted to go and kiss it . No sign of any grian what so ever.


So there it is. Its not the screen. not settings in projector but the movie itself.


Also I was very happy with Seymour AT screen display. Absolutely no sigh of any material and just a crystal clear picture .


I wonder why these Blue Ray movies have this effect????????????? I mean these movies are relatively new and shouldn't have this effect but sadly they do.


----------



## RapalloAV

OMG!


----------



## deromax

Everything that is shot on photographic film will have some kind of grain, even if it was shot in 2013. These days, to shoot a movie on film or digitally is an artistic choice by the movie director.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400#post_24064244
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why these Blue Ray movies have this effect????????????? I mean these movies are relatively new and shouldn't have this effect but sadly they do.



usually it is directors intent, suppose to be artistic, personally I hate it. I have seen a couple of movies lately that looked washed out with the whites over shot in them. Had me futsin with the projector and HTPC for a couple of days trying to figure out what was going on.


----------



## jeffleonard

Goodness, what a derail. Let's get this thread back on track.


Finally finished our new theater build and installed my 150" wide 2.35 curved Seymour screen last weekend. Projector is a Sony vw50es with a Prismasonic lens.


Old theater was a 140" DIY 2.35 screen paired with a Sony Pearl and Panamorph lens.


I am 100% thrilled with my Seymour screen. Great image...having an AT screen is also much cooler than I thought it would be. Assembly was very easy. Attaching the screen to the frame was a piece of cake, my 11 year old was impressed by how easily it attached.


Seymour was great to deal with. I had a small issue where the fidelio velvet was slightly torn by the corner of the aluminum frame. The guys at Seymour sent me a small patch right away and I repaired the spot.


Count me among your satisfied customers.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeffleonard*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24065366
> 
> 
> Goodness, what a derail. Let's get this thread back on track.
> 
> 
> Finally finished our new theater build and installed my 150" wide 2.35 curved Seymour screen last weekend. Projector is a Sony vw50es with a Prismasonic lens.
> 
> 
> Old theater was a 140" DIY 2.35 screen paired with a Sony Pearl and Panamorph lens.
> 
> 
> I am 100% thrilled with my Seymour screen. Great image...having an AT screen is also much cooler than I thought it would be. Assembly was very easy. Attaching the screen to the frame was a piece of cake, my 11 year old was impressed by how easily it attached.
> 
> 
> Seymour was great to deal with. I had a small issue where the fidelio velvet was slightly torn by the corner of the aluminum frame. The guys at Seymour sent me a small patch right away and I repaired the spot.
> 
> 
> Count me among your satisfied customers.



Nice. How big of a difference do you see in between curved VS no curved screen?


----------



## jeffleonard

The curved screen is definitely cooler...more of a "cinema" effect. I only have about 6" on either side of the frame to the sidewall, so it's a very "IMAX" effect. (I call it the L-MAX theater)


I had my old VC Panamorph setup dialed in with very little barrel distortion on the flat screen. Haven't had time to really tweak the new setup yet, but the Prismasonic doesn't show much pincushion. So, I probably don't really _need_ the curved screen. I just went with curved as a personal preference.


Curved = cool.


The biggest difference I see is PQ. My DIY screen was a painted plastic panel with a Sony Pearl and I was happy with the PQ. The Seymour + the HW50 just blows that away. I'm sure the HW50 is making a big contribution, but I won't ever go back to DIY/painted screens. And I was a DIY guy for over 10 years.


Also, front row is 12'6" from the screen, no weave visible. IT's hard to see until I'm 6' or closer.


----------



## brwsaw

Edit: I thought I'd hung my screen backwards.


The current front has "stripes" top to bottom (the weave isn't as noticeable close up).

The current back has a weave I expected.

I've already "mechanically" damaged the edges so I'm going to turn it around and do it again.


Edit: As its only hanging from the ceiling atm we lifted it from the bottom corners (lights out, PJ on) to see no visible difference.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeffleonard*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24066390
> 
> 
> The curved screen is definitely cooler...more of a "cinema" effect. I only have about 6" on either side of the frame to the sidewall, so it's a very "IMAX" effect. (I call it the L-MAX theater)
> 
> 
> I had my old VC Panamorph setup dialed in with very little barrel distortion on the flat screen. Haven't had time to really tweak the new setup yet, but the Prismasonic doesn't show much pincushion. So, I probably don't really _need_ the curved screen. I just went with curved as a personal preference.
> 
> 
> Curved = cool.
> 
> 
> The biggest difference I see is PQ. My DIY screen was a painted plastic panel with a Sony Pearl and I was happy with the PQ. The Seymour + the HW50 just blows that away. I'm sure the HW50 is making a big contribution, but I won't ever go back to DIY/painted screens. And I was a DIY guy for over 10 years.
> 
> 
> Also, front row is 12'6" from the screen, no weave visible. IT's hard to see until I'm 6' or closer.



Would you think it'll still be cool to have a curved 16:9 ratio screen? I am still considering my options.


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> Would you think it'll still be cool to have a curved 16:9 ratio screen? I am still considering my options.



I've seen a few TV manufacturers jumping on the curved screen bandwagon (16:9). It's ridiculous for small screens and can affect the quality of the picture unless you're right in the sweet spot. For projection, however, the screens are generally very large and the compromises are few if any. Yes, they look very cool, but unless you have an anamorphic lens you don't really need it. The curve does take some getting used to but I wouldn't change my curved screen for a flat screen ever.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24167054
> 
> 
> I've seen a few TV manufacturers jumping on the curved screen bandwagon (16:9). It's ridiculous for small screens and can affect the quality of the picture unless you're right in the sweet spot. For projection, however, the screens are generally very large and the compromises are few if any. Yes, they look very cool, but unless you have an anamorphic lens you don't really need it. The curve does take some getting used to but I wouldn't change my curved screen for a flat screen ever.



Yeah, it's a tough one... if i get the curve, don't like it, i'll have to buy another... but to hell with it, I'll likely take the risk...


----------



## jeffleonard

Regarding the curved 16:9 screen, I think it really depends on size of the screen. I agree with Blaster, I think the curve on a smaller screen isn't necessary...but it's cool.


My 2.35 screen is 150" wide, and the screen curve radius is 40'...edges of the screen are about 7" or so off the wall. How big are you thinking of going? a 150" wide 16:9 screen would be massive.


There was a significant price increase to go with the curved screen...but I'm glad that I did. I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't like it...other than paying a premium.


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

I have a 155 inch screen that is not curved and I couldn't be happier. I don't get the whole curved screen gimmick. If you are looking for a WOW factor, trust me. I get a ton of WOWs when people see 155 inches for the first time. And my entire screen wall was done DIY for less than $500. That's a lot of WOW factor too.


----------



## pgwalsh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffreyJonesBSME*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24167879
> 
> 
> I have a 155 inch screen that is not curved and I couldn't be happier. I don't get the whole curved screen gimmick. If you are looking for a WOW factor, trust me. I get a ton of WOWs when people see 155 inches for the first time. And my entire screen wall was done DIY for less than $500. That's a lot of WOW factor too.


I believe some people use the curve screen for 2.35:1 for the pincushion effect with an A-lens. I noticed this effect slightly on my screen that was flat. I don't know if new lenses have this issue or not.


----------



## jeffleonard




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffreyJonesBSME*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24167879
> 
> 
> I have a 155 inch screen that is not curved and I couldn't be happier. I don't get the whole curved screen gimmick. If you are looking for a WOW factor, trust me. I get a ton of WOWs when people see 155 inches for the first time. And my entire screen wall was done DIY for less than $500. That's a lot of WOW factor too.



Your theater looks great. My previous theater had a DIY screen too. He asked my opinion of a curved screen, since I own one. However, we are taking this thread off topic again. Back on topic:


I like my Seymour AV curved screen. I would recommend Seymour AV to anyone looking to purchase a new screen, curved or not. YMMV with a curved screen. Here's a couple pictures (of rather poor quality)


----------



## pgwalsh

Does anyone here own the Absolute, if so, what do you think?


Also, what's the deal with SeymourAV and Seymour Screen Excellence, why two sites for the same company?


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeffleonard*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24167688
> 
> 
> Regarding the curved 16:9 screen, I think it really depends on size of the screen. I agree with Blaster, I think the curve on a smaller screen isn't necessary...but it's cool.
> 
> 
> My 2.35 screen is 150" wide, and the screen curve radius is 40'...edges of the screen are about 7" or so off the wall. How big are you thinking of going? a 150" wide 16:9 screen would be massive.
> 
> 
> There was a significant price increase to go with the curved screen...but I'm glad that I did. I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't like it...other than paying a premium.



I can only do 10 feet wide, ie, 120 inches. Still think a curved 16:9 on that size would work?


----------



## TedO

jeffleonard,


I was thinking of going with the 150" curved screen also. I assume the hole in the screen wall for the speakers is smaller that the flat screen. On a 150" screen, what is the width of the pass through hole?


I am using a Panamorph lens (or will be) and figure between eliminating the pin cushion from the lens and the added cool factor it would be well worth the money. What's an extra $500 when I have already spend THOUSANDS to build my theater just to watch movies.


----------



## jeffleonard




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolgeek*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24168581
> 
> 
> I can only do 10 feet wide, ie, 120 inches. Still think a curved 16:9 on that size would work?



Sure, it will work. It's really your personal/design preference. Since you're not using an anamorphic lens...you don't need to worry about pincushion correction.


The only thing i could see being a potential issue is sports viewing. Scoring tickers might look a little distorted across the top & bottom of the screen due to cropping at the center of the screen.


Flat vs curve is really up to you. I don't think you would be disappointed either way.


----------



## jeffleonard




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TedO*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24168622
> 
> 
> jeffleonard,
> 
> 
> I was thinking of going with the 150" curved screen also. I assume the hole in the screen wall for the speakers is smaller that the flat screen. On a 150" screen, what is the width of the pass through hole?
> 
> 
> I am using a Panamorph lens (or will be) and figure between eliminating the pin cushion from the lens and the added cool factor it would be well worth the money. What's an extra $500 when I have already spend THOUSANDS to build my theater just to watch movies.



My build was a little different than most. Most AT screens are mounted on a false wall built out into the room. My original plan was to do a non AT-DIY 140" wide screen that was recessed into the wall. So we framed the wall and the recess. After framing & drywalling, I changed plans and decided to go with the AT Seymour screen. So I just put my front & center speakers in that recessed area and covered the rest with acoustical foam panels. The 150" wide Seymour hangs in front of that recessed space, but only overhangs by a few inches on each side.


Poke around the forums and you can find some good build threads with the entire "false wall" style builds.


Side note...make sure you have a lens that does horizontal stretch, not vertical compression. A VC lens won't work well with the curved screen. My old Panamorph was a VC lens.


----------



## wse


To make the front wall and part of the side and celing wall as black as possible is this what to use?

 Royalty 3 Velvet http://www.joann.com/royalty-3-velvet/xprd728568.html#prefn1=isProject&q=velvet&prefv1=false&start=4

 

How do you attach it to the walls and the ceiling?


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> My build was a little different than most. Most AT screens are mounted on a false wall built out into the room. My original plan was to do a non AT-DIY 140" wide screen that was recessed into the wall. So we framed the wall and the recess. After framing & drywalling, I changed plans and decided to go with the AT Seymour screen. So I just put my front & center speakers in that recessed area and covered the rest with acoustical foam panels. The 150" wide Seymour hangs in front of that recessed space, but only overhangs by a few inches on each side.



I can say this, I am soo glad I went with an acoustically transparent screen. Having all the same speakers across the front with the tweeters at ear level has made such a vast improvement in sound it's hard to describe in words. I originally made a cabinet below my then painted on screen in order to hide my speakers. When I built my curved screen I just mounted the screen on top of it and put my speakers behind the screen. It's false wall-ish in that the drapes on the sides and top make it look like a false wall. I'll post some newer pics when I get the chance. As someone else said, it is a big leap in PQ going from a painted screen to the Seymour screen.


----------



## SherazNJ

How far are you guys placing the Front Left and Right speakers from screen. I read somewhere that it should be placed around 12" away from screen. Is that correct? I noticed that I have to bump up the volume higher (around -3db) to get a decent level of sound. Also during Audyssey calibration, I could hear that Left and Right didn't sound as loud as center. All my Left/Center/Right are same speakers that are Klipsch RF-82 with tweeter leveled to ear level.


Following is the level after calibration

Left = -1

Center = -3

Right = -1


----------



## RapalloAV

I absolutely love a curved screen, they are magic!


I would do anything to have my XD 146" diag Scope screen replaced with a Curved XD Scope screen the same size, but I just cant fit it in. I could if I removed my main stage curtain but a cinema isn't a cinema for me without the curtain, it does add the icing to the cake.


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> I read somewhere that it should be placed around 12" away from screen.



False. Taken right from the Seymour website:


> Quote:
> The Center Stage XD was designed to hang right over in-wall speakers without compromise as long as you don't have ports with high velocity airflow



I have mine as close as they can be to the screen (1-2 inches) with no problems despite having front ported speakers (Tannoy Dc12i - they've got some pretty decent output!). I have them toed in to match the curve of the screen. Perhaps I should fiddle with some major toe-in as the website suggests but I'm too busy enjoying movies and playing games. Need for Speed: Most Wanted on the PC with maxed out graphics set to a custom resolution of 1920x816 to match my scope screen is absolutely ridiculous!


----------



## bighvy76

I second that. My LRC are right up against the back of my screen and they sound great. I ran the yapo calibration it left it alone


----------



## NGiovas




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2400_100#post_24172296
> 
> 
> How far are you guys placing the Front Left and Right speakers from screen. I read somewhere that it should be placed around 12" away from screen. Is that correct? I noticed that I have to bump up the volume higher (around -3db) to get a decent level of sound. Also during Audyssey calibration, I could hear that Left and Right didn't sound as loud as center. All my Left/Center/Right are same speakers that are Klipsch RF-82 with tweeter leveled to ear level.
> 
> 
> Following is the level after calibration
> 
> Left = -1
> 
> Center = -3
> 
> Right = -1


 

You mention that the left and right speakers don't "sound" as loud.  Have you measured the output of each with an SPL?  That would tell you if they are the same.  If they are, you can play with positioning/angle to see if that helps.

 

I have my speakers about 6-8" behind my screen, but don't think there would be a problem placing them closer.


----------



## jeffleonard

^^^Nick's theater was part of my inspiration to go with the Seymour curved screen.


My speakers are pretty close too. L & R about 5 inches and the center is about an inch. If I left the speaker grille on the center it would probably touch.


Unless you have huge speakers with the bass ports right against the screen, you're probably fine. I have seen some build threads on the forums with numerous massive subwoofers behind AT screens.


----------



## pgwalsh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24172400
> 
> 
> I absolutely love a curved screen, they are magic!
> 
> 
> I would do anything to have my XD 146" diag Scope screen replaced with a Curved XD Scope screen the same size, but I just cant fit it in. I could if I removed my main stage curtain but a cinema isn't a cinema for me without the curtain, it does add the icing to the cake.


Are those actual theater seats? How comfortable are they?


Nice screen and curtain.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeffleonard*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24173110
> 
> 
> ^^^Nick's theater was part of my inspiration to go with the Seymour curved screen.
> 
> 
> My speakers are pretty close too. L & R about 5 inches and the center is about an inch. If I left the speaker grille on the center it would probably touch.
> 
> 
> Unless you have huge speakers with the bass ports right against the screen, you're probably fine. I have seen some build threads on the forums with numerous massive subwoofers behind AT screens.


My speakers don't have subs but my main subs are behind the screen and are working absolutely fine. I took graphs with REW and they are working great. I get a nice house curve.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24172476
> 
> 
> False. Taken right from the Seymour website:
> 
> I have mine as close as they can be to the screen (1-2 inches) with no problems despite having front ported speakers (Tannoy Dc12i - they've got some pretty decent output!). I have them toed in to match the curve of the screen. Perhaps I should fiddle with some major toe-in as the website suggests but I'm too busy enjoying movies and playing games. Need for Speed: Most Wanted on the PC with maxed out graphics set to a custom resolution of 1920x816 to match my scope screen is absolutely ridiculous!



I read their article and according to it, towing won't make a difference as they had less than 1 db of diff b/w 0-40 degrees of angle. Here they also show an image http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp where they are pointing out to have side speakers to be around but I think its for those who want to put side speakers around screen rather than behind them.


Then they mention this


> Quote:
> Experiment with aggressive toe in for the left and right speakers. Try aiming the left speaker toward the right-most seat and likewise with the right speaker. It will likely improve off-center imaging and reduce the smearing effect from sidewall reflections.



Has anyone tried it? The screen doesn't seem to cause any issue with angling. This is recommended to produce a better sound stage. My room is 142" wide and I placed L/Rspeakers on side of each wall toed in to center.


One point they did mention was to increase center speaker db a notch if that's the only one behind the screen and if all front speakers are behind then reduce surround trim a notch. Here are some pics. Please ignore center speaker placed horizontally since I have replaced it with another tower speaker recently. Just can't take picture now since screen is already in place.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NGiovas*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24173018
> 
> 
> You mention that the left and right speakers don't "sound" as loud.  Have you measured the output of each with an SPL?  That would tell you if they are the same.  If they are, you can play with positioning/angle to see if that helps.
> 
> 
> I have my speakers about 6-8" behind my screen, but don't think there would be a problem placing them closer.



Yes I did and all speakers came exactly to same level.


----------



## deromax

SherazNj, you should try your center speaker placed vertically. You'd gain more horizontal coverage and at the same time less sound reflexion from the ceiling and floor.


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> SherazNj, you should try your center speaker placed vertically. You'd gain more horizontal coverage and at the same time less sound reflexion from the ceiling and floor.



+1. You'd have to hack down your stand a bit, though. Nobody's going to see it anyway. In a perfect world, you'd get another RF-82 for the middle to replace your current center channel and it would be pure awesome.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> SherazNj, you should try your center speaker placed vertically. You'd gain more horizontal coverage and at the same time less sound reflexion from the ceiling and floor.



I think you didn't read the post







these images were taken before I replaced my center speaker with tower. Even if you place center speaker vertically, its not same as buying a tower speaker that has drivers installed vertically. So I replaced it with same speaker as my Left and Right ones are










> Quote:
> +1. You'd have to hack down your stand a bit, though. Nobody's going to see it anyway. In a perfect world, you'd get another RF-82 in the middle and it would be pure awesome.



Well that's what I have now just not in the pics I posted.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pgwalsh*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2430#post_24173111
> 
> 
> Are those actual theater seats? How comfortable are they?
> 
> 
> Nice screen and curtain.



Yes they are and they are extremely comfortable, if I use recliners I sleep through the whole movie.

This was the only way I could get 12 seats into the cinema, I show to many friends at a screening and need 12 seats...


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I have some real cinema seats too, as my room is quite narrow and I wanted to get rows of three or four in there, the only way to do it was to use real cinema seat s- they're quite a bit narrower than normal seats. What I have found, is that they are even more comfortable with a foot rest.


Second row won't have that luxury though.










Gary


----------



## deromax

oooops!










With a third tower, you made the right choice!


----------



## iolmaster

I need a little advice here. I currently own a 6 year old Seymour screen and have been happy with it. I purchased it too small thinking I had some limitations that turned out not to be an issue. I have always been a little disappointed that the screen is not completely flat. I understand that this was a flaw in the old type of material. No big deal but it would have been nice. I am considering getting the size I really need and want to know if any of you have had any experience with both the old fabric and the new fabric. Is the new fabric sharper? Does it lay flat? By the way I am referring to a retractable screen not a fixed. Any input you have is appreciated. I searched but could not find any comparison.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iolmaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2460#post_24200175
> 
> 
> I need a little advice here. I currently own a 6 year old Seymour screen and have been happy with it. I purchased it too small thinking I had some limitations that turned out not to be an issue. I have always been a little disappointed that the screen is not completely flat. I understand that this was a flaw in the old type of material. No big deal but it would have been nice. I am considering getting the size I really need and want to know if any of you have had any experience with both the old fabric and the new fabric. Is the new fabric sharper? Does it lay flat? By the way I am referring to a retractable screen not a fixed. Any input you have is appreciated. I searched but could not find any comparison.



Tons of changes in the past six years on the retractables. The fabric was improved to XD and is cut non-tilted, the tension system is different, weight bar about 3x heavier, roller is larger, which all contribute to flatness. Let me know if you want a sample of non-tilt XD to make sure you don't have artifacts with your projector.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## michaelscott73

Is anyone NOT using the black fabric and have their speakers an inch away without the grills? Can you see the drivers at all in bright scenes?

Thanks


----------



## laugsbach

^^


I am not using the black fabric and can not see my drivers...I am at a 12' viewing distance in a totally dark room.


----------



## cw5billwade

Same here my wall behind the screen is black fabric and my speakers are black . I have no issues


----------



## have.blue

Mine are a few inches back and I had to cover a couple shiny silver logos with gaff tape. At the right angle with the right light from the projector I could notice a very minor reflection. Other than that I am not able to see any reflections. I put my screen up a little over a year ago and have really enjoyed it!! 130" 16:9 with a wood frame. (the photo is a combination of two photos to get the exposure right)


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

My situation is a little different. I have lights behind my screen wall and I could see those lights shine through the screen. I put black speaker cloth up on the speaker cutouts to block most of the light.


----------



## Larry M




----------



## Jedirun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *michaelscott73*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2460#post_24231114
> 
> 
> Is anyone NOT using the black fabric and have their speakers an inch away without the grills? Can you see the drivers at all in bright scenes?
> 
> Thanks


I used to a have speakers with metal grills and they caused reflections. Black speaker grill cloth costing about $6 per yard solved that problem.


----------



## Larry M

Behind the screen


----------



## Larry M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *michaelscott73*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2460#post_24231114
> 
> 
> Is anyone NOT using the black fabric and have their speakers an inch away without the grills? Can you see the drivers at all in bright scenes?
> 
> Thanks



I'm not using the black fabric. 4k screen, speakers without grills....but several inches behind the screen


----------



## spuj

I need some quick input..


How do I know wich side is front/back on the center stage xd material?


Is the front the one that was facing inward on the rod it was delievered on?


----------



## have.blue

According to Seymore AV - "Sides - Both sides of the Center Stage XD screen material measure the same, however we inspect the inside surface of the roll to ensure that there are no blemishes. That's also the side we prefer due to our use in retractable screens (it's a bit more moiré resistant when used without a tilted angle). However, some folks prefer the slightly different weave pattern on the outside surface. Feel free to use that side if you prefer, or if you blemish the other side."


----------



## spuj

Thanks buddy!


----------



## Cam Man

What is the proper way to test Center Stage XD for moire? I can anticipate that you tilt or not tilt the fabric based on the type of screen you have. Any particular type of image or movement in the program?


----------



## bighvy76

What exactly is moire? I'm hung my center stage fixed frame from the ceiling in it actually hangs with some tilt . The top is closer to the wall then the bottom. The image looks good. I also was told the screen was cut at an angle to stop moire.


----------



## cw5billwade

I just wanted to thank Chris and Jon agian for all their help on my DYI frame. The Screen in a word is amazing. As a reminder for everyone it was a DYI fixed frame 2.0:1 126” wide 65” tall Center stage XD materiel with grommets and bands. 126"x65" gives me

126"x52" 2.40:1 with 136" diag, 6 12" bars top and bottom

126"x54" 2.35:1 with 137" diag, 5 1/2" bars top and bottom

120"x65" 1.85:1 with 137" diag, (man this size make it like being there) 3" bars both sides

116"x65" 16x9 with 133" diag. 5" bars both sides

So in the way the best of both worlds If I would have done a 2.40:1 screen 126" wide my 16x9 size would have been 92"x52" with 106" diag. If I would have done 16X9 65" tall my 2.40:1 would have been 116"x48" 126" diag. I made some adjustments to my screen wall raising it 3 inches so I needed to realign the AE-8000 I had to grab a 16x9 film and start messing with the frigging joystick.







I knew Avatar was filmed in 16x9 so I grabbed it. After getting the PJ aligned I said to myself “self why not watch Avatar it has been a while since you watched it last”







Of course I had to get out the 3D glasses







all I have to say is “holly crap”







the color and 3D was amazing.







These pictures are with my cell phone through my left lens on 3rd generation glasses. Panasonic AE-8000 PJ set to normal with fan in normal. Look at the color this screen produces while looking through the lenes of the 3D glasses.
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131208_124112.jpg.html  
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131208_124455.jpg.html  
http://s629.photobucket.com/user/cw5billwade/media/theater/20131208_133548.jpg.html  

Nothing beats watching Avatar in 3d on a 116"x65" 16x9 with 133" diag. from 10'6" in full 7.2 surround sound

Pic behind screen.
 

Pic of the velvet panels I made I had to turn on my lighting behind the screen because they were to dark to take the picture and blended into the wall.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2460#post_24270451
> 
> 
> What is the proper way to test Center Stage XD for moire? I can anticipate that you tilt or not tilt the fabric based on the type of screen you have. Any particular type of image or movement in the program?



If you're using a tilted / biased cut you don't need to test for moire - it's impossible.


If you're trying to use a non-tilted cut such as in a retractable screen, sharply focus a white field on the material with something black behind it. Look for any color striping or banding that shifts around when zoomed at various sizes.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2460#post_24274529
> 
> 
> If you're using a tilted / biased cut you don't need to test for moire - it's impossible.
> 
> 
> If you're trying to use a non-tilted cut such as in a retractable screen, sharply focus a white field on the material with something black behind it. Look for any color striping or banding that shifts around when zoomed at various sizes.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thank you.


----------



## deromax

I'm building a new 130 inches scope screen with the XD material. I own a Panasonic projector with "Smooth screen" technology that produces no screen door effect. I think I won't use tilt this time. Opinions?


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2480_10#post_24280697
> 
> 
> I'm building a new 130 inches scope screen with the XD material. I own a Panasonic projector with "Smooth screen" technology that produces no screen door effect. I think I won't use tilt this time. Opinions?



With a screen that large, I don't think you need to worry about moire no matter how bad your projector's SDE is.


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2460#post_24280697
> 
> 
> I'm building a new 130 inches scope screen with the XD material. I own a Panasonic projector with "Smooth screen" technology that produces no screen door effect. I think I won't use tilt this time. Opinions?


my screen above is 126" wide no issues


----------



## Cam Man

I'm trying to find someone who has one of Chris's retractables in the cherry finish who might be able to post some photos. Chris's site has one photo, but I'd like to see it in some actual homes the see its color there.


Anybody have one and photos?


----------



## nathan_h

Great thread, but after digesting lots of it I think my seating distance will preclude the use of the XD material for my AT solution.


I'll be about 9 feet from the screen (front row). Right now it is more like 10 feet but I'll need that foot of space for placing the speakers behind the screen. Looks like this seating distance means slightly visible screen weave. Unfortunately I cannot back up the front row without losing the back row.


So I think I need to step up to the Enlightor 4K material. Anyone know the pricing? I'm beginning to think it may be a case of 'if you have to ask...'


I've got a 10' wide 2.35:1 Stewart screen right now (not AT), but am tired of compromised speaker placement. Since the room is only 12.5' wide, you can imagine the challenges!


So I need an AT solution that works visually from 9 feet with no compromise. I take it among the several different materials only the Enlightor 4K is going to work I my situation.


----------



## MikeyD360




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2460#post_24313471
> 
> 
> So I need an AT solution that works visually from 9 feet with no compromise. I take it among the several different materials only the Enlightor 4K is going to work I my situation.



The best thing to do is get a sample of XD and test it out in your room to see what your own perception of the weave is like.


----------



## bighvy76

I don't see any weave till about 5 feet from my xd screen. I'm 9-10' away and its beautiful.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeyD360*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2460#post_24313796
> 
> 
> The best thing to do is get a sample of XD and test it out in your room to see what your own perception of the weave is like.



Agreed. I have requested a sample of both materials and won't make a decision until I see both in my room, at my distance, with my eyes, and my projector.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2460#post_24313999
> 
> 
> I don't see any weave till about 5 feet from my xd screen. I'm 9-10' away and its beautiful.



Well, this gives me hope


----------



## bighvy76

Im using a Benq w1070 projector(pretty bright unit) on a 120" center stage xd fixed frame with the speakers only like 1" behind the screen its pretty awesome . Small room like 10x14x8. I don't think u will have any problem 8-9' back


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bighvy76*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24314279
> 
> 
> Im using a Benq w1070 projector(pretty bright unit) on a 120" center stage xd fixed frame with the speakers only like 1" behind the screen its pretty awesome . Small room like 10x14x8. I don't think u will have any problem 8-9' back



Thanks for the perspective. Can you tell me, how close do you need to get in your setup before you can start to see patterns/texture in your room? 6'?


----------



## bighvy76

Around 4-5' I think. I will walk up on it tonight and see. Its deffinatly not 10' like I have heard.


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2460#post_24313471
> 
> 
> Great thread, but after digesting lots of it I think my seating distance will preclude the use of the XD material for my AT solution.
> 
> 
> I'll be about 9 feet from the screen (front row). Right now it is more like 10 feet but I'll need that foot of space for placing the speakers behind the screen. Looks like this seating distance means slightly visible screen weave. Unfortunately I cannot back up the front row without losing the back row.
> 
> 
> So I think I need to step up to the Enlightor 4K material. Anyone know the pricing? I'm beginning to think it may be a case of 'if you have to ask...'
> 
> 
> I've got a 10' wide 2.35:1 Stewart screen right now (not AT), but am tired of compromised speaker placement. Since the room is only 12.5' wide, you can imagine the challenges!
> 
> 
> So I need an AT solution that works visually from 9 feet with no compromise. I take it among the several different materials only the Enlightor 4K is going to work I my situation.


I have a AE-8000 which is a light cannon on a 2.0:1 screen 126” wide and 65” high it is 137" dia screen both 2.40:1 and 16x9. This is huge from the front row! My head rest when reclined on the front row is 10'6" so my eyes are probably around 10' it really depends on the movie that is playing. I have to really stare at the screen when the image has a large area of the same color like the sky or something like a light colored wall. As long as the action is moving and I am watching the movie I have no issues. When I walk toward the screen I think around 5’ is where you see the weave without looking for it. My eyes are 20/20. They used to be 20/15 but getting old sucks!


Like they said get a sample and test it out. Make sure you do not put it on top the screen you currently have. Everything behind the AT screen needs to be black from the wall to the speakers and any screen frame supports. Check my DIY screen build in my signature. Get something black even if it is a T-Shirt and put that up first then the sample.


----------



## jjcook

My experience: with my sample of XD material I could clearly see the higher-level weave structure from 9 feet away in bright scenes such as snow -- to me it is not the weave itself that is noticeable but rather the repeated pattern that creates the illusion of a higher-level structure to the weave.


I ended up going with an AT screen from a new competitor to Seymour that worked much better for me at my 8-9' viewing distance that is comparable in price to the XD. You can PM me for more details if you'd like.


----------



## deromax

At 10 feet, it will be visible with large white area when the camera is panning, like in a hockey game. Otherwise, with movie content I find it negligible and can live with this slight issue in exchange for the immense benefit of having the speakers concealed!


----------



## jjcook




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24315526
> 
> 
> At 10 feet, it will be visible with large white area when the camera is panning, like in a hockey game. Otherwise, with movie content I find it negligible and can live with this slight issue in exchange for the immense benefit of having the speakers concealed!



A good point. Even the material I went with isn't completely without some noticeable structure in bright scenes, its rare that I notice it, and the benefit of AT (particularly in my case the larger screen size) outweighs the occasional distraction.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24314552
> 
> 
> I have a AE-8000 which is a light cannon on a 2.0:1 screen 126” wide and 65” high it is 137" dia screen both 2.40:1 and 16x9. This is huge from the front row! My head rest when reclined on the front row is 10'6" so my eyes are probably around 10' it really depends on the movie that is playing. I have to really stare at the screen when the image has a large area of the same color like the sky or something like a light colored wall. As long as the action is moving and I am watching the movie I have no issues. When I walk toward the screen I think around 5’ is where you see the weave without looking for it. My eyes are 20/20. They used to be 20/15 but getting old sucks!
> 
> 
> Like they said get a sample and test it out. Make sure you do not put it on top the screen you currently have. Everything behind the AT screen needs to be black from the wall to the speakers and any screen frame supports. Check my DIY screen build in my signature. Get something black even if it is a T-Shirt and put that up first then the sample.



Excellent advice about putting a backing on the sample. I would not have remembered or thought to do that and would have a very invalid test, as a result!


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jjcook*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24315434
> 
> 
> My experience: with my sample of XD material I could clearly see the higher-level weave structure from 9 feet away in bright scenes such as snow -- to me it is not the weave itself that is noticeable but rather the repeated pattern that creates the illusion of a higher-level structure to the weave.
> 
> 
> I ended up going with an AT screen from a new competitor to Seymour that worked much better for me at my 8-9' viewing distance that is comparable in price to the XD. You can PM me for more details if you'd like.



Okay, I am intrigued. You got mail.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24315526
> 
> 
> At 10 feet, it will be visible with large white area when the camera is panning, like in a hockey game. Otherwise, with movie content I find it negligible and can live with this slight issue in exchange for the immense benefit of having the speakers concealed!



I am glad to hear this -- just to set my expectations realistically.


Maybe this means I can accept it -- just like I accept that my Ultramatte 200 Stewart screen right now is great at preserving bulb life by being so high gain I can use a lower lamp setting.... but there is a touch of hotspotting and texture in bright white scenes.


OR maybe I'll bit the bullet and go for the 4K material. Assuming Seymour gets back to me about that...


---


Appreciate all the advice, guys! It makes it much easier to have confidence when making a decision. Since going with the 4K screen is a tripling of the cost (actually, it's almost precisely 3.5x the cost, since I would go with the budget Seymour frame if I get the XD material on a frame) it's really got to be necessary for me to go that route otherwise I won't. Besides the costs, the lower gain is not ideal for me. And, of course, if I just get material and put that onto the Stewart frame, the 4K option is more like 7x the price of XD in my sizes since it appears one must purchase the 4k material only as part of a set with a frame.


Anyway, all the screen samples from the vendors should be here next week, and that will be the next milestone. (Already have, and have dismissed, the Stewart options.)


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23693009
> 
> 
> In follow up to my previous post, here are some rated gains of various woven screens and the percentage brighter that XD measures. For comparative purposes I believe we should have benchmarked gain specifications when the segment's ratings have become too wacked out.
> 
> 
> (Now defunct) SMX-HD, rated 1.16, XD measures +5% brighter
> 
> SI Gamma Maestro HD, rated 1.1, XD measures +13% brighter
> 
> 
> The imported screens are unsurprisingly the worst offenders:
> 
> Elite 1080, rated 1.0, XD measures +15% brighter
> 
> SnapAV Dragonfly AcoustiWeave, rated 1.3 (really, have they ever even seen a 1.3 screen?), XD measures +18% brighter
> 
> Elunevision Audioweave, rated 1.15 although it should be 0.80, XD measures +23% brighter
> 
> and the king of crazy, Elite A4K, rated 1.1 although it should be 0.69, XD measures +46% brighter
> 
> 
> If we just took their ratings and comparative measurements we could rate the XD anywhere from 1.15 to 1.60, with the average being 1.36. This segment has become degraded with the influx of imported product, like car audio. Let me know if you have suggestions as to how better to frame what should be a simple product specification.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


Though if looking at some of the newer tighter weave AT screens most certainly have less but you have a price tag to go with because they put 4k in the title. You also need to look at this post 2198 from Chris earlier when I was asking about gain. This information helped with my decision. XD is 1.2 gain depending on your situation that may not matter but with a 126"wide x51” tall scope and a 115" wide x65” tall 16x9 I needed every little bit of gain I could get even with the AE-8000. Most 4k screens ( even his) come in at under 1.0 Gain and most are around 0.7.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jjcook*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24315434
> 
> 
> My experience: with my sample of XD material I could clearly see the higher-level weave structure from 9 feet away in bright scenes such as snow -- to me it is not the weave itself that is noticeable but rather the repeated pattern that creates the illusion of a higher-level structure to the weave.
> 
> 
> I ended up going with an AT screen from a new competitor to Seymour that worked much better for me at my 8-9' viewing distance that is comparable in price to the XD. You can PM me for more details if you'd like.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24315526
> 
> 
> At 10 feet, it will be visible with large white area when the camera is panning, like in a hockey game. Otherwise, with movie content I find it negligible and can live with this slight issue in exchange for the immense benefit of having the speakers concealed!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jjcook*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24315640
> 
> 
> A good point. Even the material I went with isn't completely without some noticeable structure in bright scenes, its rare that I notice it, and the benefit of AT (particularly in my case the larger screen size) outweighs the occasional distraction.


----------



## nathan_h

Yep gain matters for me with a 10' wide 2.35:1 screen and an rs-20 projector.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2190#post_23693009
> 
> 
> In follow up to my previous post, here are some rated gains of various woven screens and the percentage brighter that XD measures. For comparative purposes I believe we should have benchmarked gain specifications when the segment's ratings have become too wacked out.
> 
> 
> (Now defunct) SMX-HD, rated 1.16, XD measures +5% brighter
> 
> SI Gamma Maestro HD, rated 1.1, XD measures +13% brighter
> 
> 
> The imported screens are unsurprisingly the worst offenders:
> 
> Elite 1080, rated 1.0, XD measures +15% brighter
> 
> SnapAV Dragonfly AcoustiWeave, rated 1.3 (really, have they ever even seen a 1.3 screen?), XD measures +18% brighter
> 
> Elunevision Audioweave, rated 1.15 although it should be 0.80, XD measures +23% brighter
> 
> and the king of crazy, Elite A4K, rated 1.1 although it should be 0.69, XD measures +46% brighter
> 
> 
> If we just took their ratings and comparative measurements we could rate the XD anywhere from 1.15 to 1.60, with the average being 1.36. This segment has become degraded with the influx of imported product, like car audio. Let me know if you have suggestions as to how better to frame what should be a simple product specification.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Wow so Seymour's own E4k screen has about half as much gain as their XD screen?


----------



## bkeeler10




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24317043
> 
> 
> Wow so Seymour's own E4k screen has about half as much gain as their XD screen?



Looks like he didn't mention his Enligtor 4K screen. The "king of crazy" was Elite's 4K AT material, not Screen Excellence's Enlightor 4K. I believe he rates that material at 0.98.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bkeeler10*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24317097
> 
> 
> Looks like he didn't mention his Enligtor 4K screen. The "king of crazy" was Elite's 4K AT material, not Screen Excellence's Enlightor 4K. I believe he rates that material at 0.98.



True. I didn't mention the Enlightor-4K. While it's benchmarked rating is 0.98, the unbenchmarked measurement is about 0.83. Lower gain is an advantage for screens in this market segment, as the projection horsepower is usually much higher and the lower gain technically makes it a light gray with improved black levels and shadow detail. When Doug Blackburn from Widescreen Review was reviewing the Sim2 Lumis, it's calibrated output was 3000 lumens which was much too bright for his non-perfed Studiotek 100. He used our Enlightor-4K to get the black levels correct and get the review right.


A finer-weave material for the less expensive Seymour AV line is in development, but if you're wanting the highest gain woven material, the XD is the brightest.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24317151
> 
> 
> True. I didn't mention the Enlightor-4K. While it's benchmarked rating is 0.98, the unbenchmarked measurement is about 0.83. Lower gain is an advantage for screens in this market segment, as the projection horsepower is usually much higher and the lower gain technically makes it a light gray with improved black levels and shadow detail. When Doug Blackburn from Widescreen Review was reviewing the Sim2 Lumis, it's calibrated output was 3000 lumens which was much too bright for his non-perfed Studiotek 100. He used our Enlightor-4K to get the black levels correct and get the review right.
> 
> 
> A finer-weave material for the less expensive Seymour AV line is in development, but if you're wanting the highest gain woven material, the XD is the brightest.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



And even his new finer weave material will be lower gain than the XD correct?


I look forward to receiving the sample of the XD material.


----------



## bkeeler10




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24317151
> 
> 
> True. I didn't mention the Enlightor-4K. While it's benchmarked rating is 0.98, the unbenchmarked measurement is about 0.83. Lower gain is an advantage for screens in this market segment, as the projection horsepower is usually much higher and the lower gain technically makes it a light gray with improved black levels and shadow detail. When Doug Blackburn from Widescreen Review was reviewing the Sim2 Lumis, it's calibrated output was 3000 lumens which was much too bright for his non-perfed Studiotek 100. He used our Enlightor-4K to get the black levels correct and get the review right.
> 
> 
> A finer-weave material for the less expensive Seymour AV line is in development, but if you're wanting the highest gain woven material, the XD is the brightest.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris. So, what are the targets for actual gain on the new material? And I'm assuming it will allow closer viewing distances before its weave pattern becomes visible, than with the XD? I don't suppose you have a timeline?


----------



## deromax

All of those discussions of weave visibility are mostly anecdotal anyway because a very significant factor will be the eyesight of the viewer! You must try it by yourself, in your setup.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24317280
> 
> 
> All of those discussions of weave visibility are mostly anecdotal anyway because a very significant factor will be the eyesight of the viewer! You must try it by yourself, in your setup.



Yep, which is why I eagerly waiting the samples in the mail!










But *relative* ranking is possible -- which is more or less visible, under the same circumstances.


And for people with 20/20 vision (easiest to judge for glasses wearers which normalizes their distance vision) we can talk slightly more objectively, because one variable has been largely controlled. I still agree that actual samples and tests in one's room and setup is critical, and the ultimate arbiter.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bkeeler10*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24317227
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris. So, what are the targets for actual gain on the new material? And I'm assuming it will allow closer viewing distances before its weave pattern becomes visible, than with the XD? I don't suppose you have a timeline?



Lower gain for sure, as is necessary with shrinking the thread size but it's not finalized. And yes, finer weaves are for closer viewing distances, which are also for typically smaller


----------



## bkeeler10

My screen will be 95" most likely, so the new material might be just the ticket. I assume the fabric will be available for DIY.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24317336
> 
> 
> Lower gain for sure, as is necessary with shrinking the thread size but it's not finalized. And yes, finer weaves are for closer viewing distances, which are also for typically smaller


----------



## SherazNJ

I recently upgraded my projector to vw600es. This one puts out around 1500 lumens on the AT screen. Now any bright scene I can see the screen lines (I think its called weave). Screen material is cut at an angle to get rid of any moire but any bright white scene and I can clearly see these lines going across screen at this 20 degrees angel. I'm sitting 13.5' away from screen and can still easily see it in bright scenes. Is there anything I can do to get rid of this effect?


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24320736
> 
> 
> I recently upgraded my projector to vw600es. This one puts out around 1500 lumens on the AT screen. Now any bright scene I can see the screen lines (I think its called weave). Screen material is cut at an angle to get rid of any moire but any bright white scene and I can clearly see these lines going across screen at this 20 degrees angel. I'm sitting 13.5' away from screen and can still easily see it in bright scenes. Is there anything I can do to get rid of this effect?



Dial down the brightness on the projector. How many FTL are you getting off that screen?


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24320844
> 
> 
> Dial down the brightness on the projector. How many FTL are you getting off that screen?


I don't wanna dial down the brightness. I bought this projector because of its brightness as a major factor. Its a 145" diagonal screen. Doesn't make sense for me to dial it down.


> Quote:
> How many FTL are you getting off that screen


Sorry, don't know how to calculate it.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24321041
> 
> 
> I don't wanna dial down the brightness. I bought this projector because of its brightness as a major factor. Its a 145" diagonal screen. Doesn't make sense for me to dial it down.
> 
> Sorry, don't know how to calculate it.



If the light output is exceeding the standard for front projection, it might not be possible to achieve the quality presentation you desire. But your calibrator should be able to tell you what the light output coming from the screen is, and help you adjust to spec.


----------



## SherazNJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24321179
> 
> 
> If the light output is exceeding the standard for front projection, it might not be possible to achieve the quality presentation you desire. But your calibrator should be able to tell you what the light output coming from the screen is, and help you adjust to spec.



So in other words, without changing projector configuration, there is no way to get rid of these effects?


----------



## brwsaw

I could be mistaken but at least in theory (it seemed to work for me with XD material) you could turn the screen around.

I found the weave to be just a hair more noticeable from the one side.

The weave in now noticeable at around 6-7'. Nothing from there back (assuming you're not trying for a big screen smooth AT screen).


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SherazNJ*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24321432
> 
> 
> So in other words, without changing projector configuration, there is no way to get rid of these effects?



From what you describe, I'm afraid that that appears to be the case.


The one variable none of us can factor in for sure is how much light is hitting the screen. If you get a light meter and measure that and post the results, that would help validate or disprove that idea. If you find you have 18 FTL of light, then I'm wrong. If you find you have 45 FTL in that room, the light level output by the projector is likely the cause and implies a solution.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brwsaw*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2490#post_24321462
> 
> 
> I could be mistaken but at least in theory (it seemed to work for me with XD material) you could turn the screen around.
> 
> I found the weave to be just a hair more noticeable from the one side.
> 
> The weave in now noticeable at around 6-7'. Nothing from there back (assuming you're not trying for a big screen smooth AT screen).



Worth a try. In theory it shouldn't make a difference but theory and reality don't always agree!


----------



## brwsaw

To clarify the brightness was the same, just seemed (to me, at the time) that the weave was slightly less noticeable up close which made for a closer viewing distance.

Of course I've been know to do some pretty stupid things that waste a lot of time and money, YMMV.


----------



## deromax

This turning over of the material might have some real effect to it. I find that with my new 130 inches screen the weave seems to be less visible than my previous 109 inches. Seating distance is the same. I assembled the new screen by unrolling the material so the inside of the roll is the exposed surface. With my previous screen, I don't remember which was which, but it is possible it might have been reversed.


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deromax*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2520#post_24324488
> 
> 
> This turning over of the material might have some real effect to it. I find that with my new 130 inches screen the weave seems to be less visible than my previous 109 inches. Seating distance is the same. I assembled the new screen by unrolling the material so the inside of the roll is the exposed surface. With my previous screen, I don't remember which was which, but it is possible it might have been reversed.


I sent an email to Chris he recommend the inside off the roll. That is the surface that would be exposed if using a retractable screen. Also that is the surface that is inspected for imperfections.


----------



## brwsaw

He'd confirmed as much earlier in the thread.

Just trying to help as I tried it about a month ago.

I ended up using the outside of the roll which was in pristine condition (when it arrived).


 Back (on mine)


 Front/image side


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brwsaw*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2520#post_24329417
> 
> 
> He'd confirmed as much earlier in the thread.
> 
> Just trying to help as I tried it about a month ago.
> 
> I ended up using the outside of the roll which was in pristine condition (when it arrived).
> 
> 
> Back (on mine)
> 
> 
> Front/image side



Are those at the same distance, lighting etc?


They look really different.


When you say "Back" do you mean "outside of roll"?


----------



## brwsaw

They were the same or close to the same distance.

When I hung the screen I hung it from the 8' end (sideways temporarily) and the roll was to the back of the room, what is now "back" would have been the inside of the roll.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brwsaw*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2520#post_24329570
> 
> 
> They were the same or close to the same distance.
> 
> When I hung the screen I hung it from the 8' end (sideways temporarily) and the roll was to the back of the room, what is now "back" would have been the inside of the roll.



Okay, what you are calling "back" is where you are supposed to project the image (inside of roll). Good to know.


So using the 'wrong' side really appears to be different and viable.


I'm dying to receive my sample and see it in person!


----------



## brwsaw

I'm jonesing to put it back up.


----------



## bighvy76

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but there is supposed to be no back or front to this material. Its usually the inside of the roll that was inspected for defects. Maybe Chris can chime in on this one.....again


----------



## cw5billwade

That is correct inside of roll is inspected and should be used for the front however Chris told be some people prefer the outside of the roll even though it was not inspected for blemishes.


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME

Chris said that both sides have the same look and properties. He recommends using the inside but my outside looked slightly better so I used it instead.


----------



## cw5billwade

agreed Since no QA was done on outside of roll I just went with the inside with no regrets

from rear of theater 19' from screen
 

from primary seating position about 9'
 

from primary seating position about 9' 4x zoom
 

12 inches from screen
 

12 inches from screen 4x zoom


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2520#post_24332902
> 
> 
> agreed Since no QA was done on outside of roll I just went with the inside with no regrets
> 
> from rear of theater 19' from screen
> 
> 
> from primary seating position about 9'
> 
> 
> from primary seating position about 9' 4x zoom
> 
> 
> 12 inches from screen
> 
> 
> 12 inches from screen 4x zoom



Thanks for posting this. Definitely helps give one a sense of perspective. I will try to post similar shots comparing this and similar materials.


----------



## kendo70433

Hi Folks. I wonder what the current name is for the Logitech Harmony codes for the Seymour AV screen. I bought and installed my screen four years ago and love it. But I'm updating my remote and don't see Seymour in Logitech's database. A search of this thread shows that a device by Electronic Solutions (ESI) or Somfy would do the trick. But what specific model would I input into the Logitech software? BTW, my vague memory of four years ago says that Somfy was what I used then.


Many thanks, Ken


PS And what's with Logitech taking over four years to update the database?


----------



## kendo70433

I found a cache of old emails between me and Chris. So I'll post some answers here for others' future reference.


First of all I suspect that Logitech has two databases, since Chris reports above that one can find an entry for "Seymour AV". But I can't find that. The two Harmony's I'm using are the 890 and 900, which I suspect use an old, unsupported data base. And new remotes us a new database that does have "Seymour AV" in it.


So, for the older remotes and older Seymour Av screens, codes can be found for two motor options, Somfy and Electronic Solutions. My screen uses codes that Harmony calls Electronic Solutions and ESI, with model number RP60AU.


And just to make things interesting, Logitech has coded "open" to correspond to "screen up" and "close" for "screen down".


Cheers, Ken


----------



## brwsaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brwsaw*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2520#post_24331813
> 
> 
> I'm jonesing to put it back up.



Well it's back up.

I think I found out why the side with the diagonal patten should be used.

I reinstalled the opposite side, the side I suggested, the side I used before and I'm noticing some patchy blur when the lines on the image are parallel to the walls or the floor. Not alot but enough to wonder what if...


----------



## ellisr63

Does the screen have the little writing on one side near the edge like the samples do so you know what side to use?


----------



## brwsaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ellisr63*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2520#post_24410132
> 
> 
> Does the screen have the little writing on one side near the edge like the samples do so you know what side to use?



I never looked.

It's fine at 120", I'm thinking it must be something else.

Is it possible the dust on the lens is effecting the image at 150"?


I'll square it up (better) later today and see if this helps too.


----------



## prayformojo

Looking at these screens, likely going to do a 120" screen with seating at 12-14 feet back, do I need to get the black backing, what does the black backing achieve exactly, it is not clear from the website? Greatly appreciate the help.


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prayformojo*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2530_10#post_24444192
> 
> 
> Looking at these screens, likely going to do a 120" screen with seating at 12-14 feet back, do I need to get the black backing, what does the black backing achieve exactly, it is not clear from the website? Greatly appreciate the help.



The black backing helps to block reflections from anything shiny behind the screen. (Because it is acoustically transparent it is also partially visually transparent.)


----------



## prayformojo

Thanks for the quick reply, that helps, not sure I will have anything shiny back there, but I guess if you were using certain speakers they may have a metallic part that could show through.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prayformojo*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2520#post_24444244
> 
> 
> Thanks for the quick reply, that helps, not sure I will have anything shiny back there, but I guess if you were using certain speakers they may have a metallic part that could show through.



It's possible anything other than black stuff (speakers, acoustic panels, the wall, any framing) back there will negatively impact color and contrast on the screen.


----------



## jeffleonard

I purchased the black backing cloth with my Seymour screen.


I didn't want to chance that my speakers would be visible...the center is only an inch or so from the screen.


----------



## cw5billwade

I put 1 1/2" mineral wool on my wall and covered it with black materiel. My speakers are black and I have no issue.


----------



## ClayliketheDIRT


Just finished my Seymour XD Screen! Took a little bit of time to get it just perfect (in my eyes).

 

Can't be happier with my screen and the transaction I had with Jon Kaisand from Seymour!! These guys are wicked sweet to deal with!

 



 

Cell phone pick, not the best quality.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ClayliketheDIRT*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2520#post_24463918
> 
> 
> Just finished my Seymour XD Screen! Took a little bit of time to get it just perfect (in my eyes).
> 
> 
> Can't be happier with my screen and the transaction I had with Jon Kaisand from Seymour!! These guys are wicked sweet to deal with!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cell phone pick, not the best quality.



Very nice!


The seating location might be a little outside of normal practice, however...










Cheers,

Chris


----------



## ClayliketheDIRT

What can I say I am a front row seat kinda guy!


Ps not final location, just running a test on it, in my lounge area. Thanks for the comment.


----------



## tractng

What is the typical cost for a 120" DIY AT with 16:9 ratio?


----------



## nathan_h

Depends on what kind of materials you use. You can find fabric prices on the Seymour site. A frame could be as simple as some pine from home depot....so under a $100 plus fabric is possible.


Check out the DIY thread for ideas about framing materials.


----------



## cw5billwade

I had Chris and Jon add grommets and bands to my 126" wide DIY screen which made it so much easier than stapling and risk ruining the screen. Because every situation is different I will round up 126"x65" screen material $275, Precision Cut 11 degrees $45.00, $200 to install the 58 grommets and $50 for the 58 o-rings. I spent about $100 in building materiel which included the minimalist wall design. Check screen build thread


----------



## chriscmore

FYI, we're now shipping screens made with the new Center Stage UF. This new ultra-fine acoustically transparent weave has no minimum seating distance for those applications where the 8-11' minimum seating distance of the XD is limiting. While the first production batch was made on a 61" wide loom, 84" wide will be available in June. Tilted cuts aren't necessary with the UF, so our roll width needn't be so large. Also, this material can be shipped folded, while still holding mechanical features such as grommets, or DIY staples.


We also have a new Glacier Gray material for those non-AT folks with a bright projector that would like a little ambient light tolerance.


I've spent the past year working on screen materials, so we have two or three more in development. Tweaking the spectral responses unfortunately takes much more time than I wished.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2520#post_24512681
> 
> 
> FYI, we're now shipping screens made with the new Center Stage UF. This new ultra-fine acoustically transparent weave has no minimum seating distance for those applications where the 8-11' minimum seating distance of the XD is limiting. While the first production batch was made on a 61" wide loom, 84" wide will be available in June. Tilted cuts aren't necessary with the UF, so our roll width needn't be so large. Also, this material can be shipped folded, while still holding mechanical features such as grommets, or DIY staples.
> 
> 
> We also have a new Glacier Gray material for those non-AT folks with a bright projector that would like a little ambient light tolerance.
> 
> 
> I've spent the past year working on screen materials, so we have two or three more in development. Tweaking the spectral responses unfortunately takes much more time than I wished.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Chris,


Does the UF have more gain than the 4K material?


How does the UF gain compare to the XD material?










Thanks!


...Glenn


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Glenn Baumann*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24512694
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 
> Does the UF have more gain than the 4K material?
> 
> 
> How does the UF gain compare to the XD material?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



The UF has about the same gain as our Enlightor-4K: nearly 1 when benchmarked against the other materials (measures the same as Screen Innovation's 1.1 gain Maestro, SnapAV/Dragonfly's 1.3 gain disaster of a screen material, and +14% brighter than Elite's 1.1 gain "4K"), but the unbenchmarked spec is 0.8.


The UF gain is about 20% lower than the XD, which is the brightest weave available. With brighter projectors such as Epson, a lower gain will have the advantage of deeper black levels. This material is developed for the closest of seating distances, which are typically not the 150"+ sizes we see, where more modest screen sizes should be lower gain.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## ellisr63

What woul


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24512782
> 
> 
> The UF has about the same gain as our Enlightor-4K: nearly 1 when benchmarked against the other materials (measures the same as Screen Innovation's 1.1 gain Maestro, SnapAV/Dragonfly's 1.3 gain disaster of a screen material, and +14% brighter than Elite's 1.1 gain "4K"), but the unbenchmarked spec is 0.8.
> 
> 
> The UF gain is about 20% lower than the XD, which is the brightest weave available. With brighter projectors such as Epson, a lower gain will have the advantage of deeper black levels. This material is developed for the closest of seating distances, which are typically not the 150"+ sizes we see, where more modest screen sizes should be lower gain.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


Hi Chris,

What would you suggest XD or UF for a 14' wide viewing area screen (19' wide screen wall masked) with the first row 13' away from the screen?


----------



## Chris Young

That's great news Chris. I look forward to seeing this new screen material. I just need to sell my xd screen first.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Chris,


I have sent you a PM!



...Glenn


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24512782
> 
> 
> The UF has about the same gain as our Enlightor-4K: nearly 1 when benchmarked against the other materials (measures the same as Screen Innovation's 1.1 gain Maestro, SnapAV/Dragonfly's 1.3 gain disaster of a screen material, and +14% brighter than Elite's 1.1 gain "4K"), but the unbenchmarked spec is 0.8.
> 
> 
> The UF gain is about 20% lower than the XD, which is the brightest weave available. With brighter projectors such as Epson, a lower gain will have the advantage of deeper black levels. This material is developed for the closest of seating distances, which are typically not the 150"+ sizes we see, where more modest screen sizes should be lower gain.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Correction: Actually the UF measures nearly 10% higher gain than the Enlightor-4K, so it's in between the two with respect to gain.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24512942
> 
> 
> Correction: Actually the UF measures nearly 10% higher gain than the Enlightor-4K, so it's in between the two with respect to gain.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Oh I could really use that gain. Will PM you about exchanging the EN4k screen you shipped out to me a few weeks ago.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ellisr63*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24512808
> 
> 
> What woul
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> What would you suggest XD or UF for a 14' wide viewing area screen (19' wide screen wall masked) with the first row 13' away from the screen?



Since that's a very large screen and you're sitting fairly far back, I'd recommend the XD. Also, at 14'w you'd likely need to wait until the UF is woven on 84" rolls, which is currently looking like May/June timeframe. Because people's preferences vary, we like to send samples out to make sure you get the best screen available for your application.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## ellisr63




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24512957
> 
> 
> Since that's a very large screen and you're sitting fairly far back, I'd recommend the XD. Also, at 14'w you'd likely need to wait until the UF is woven on 84" rolls, which is currently looking like May/June timeframe. Because people's preferences vary, we like to send samples out to make sure you get the best screen available for your application.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


Thanks for the reply, Chris. I am anticipating needing the screen the beginning of July. Have you started to send out samples of the UF yet?


----------



## chriscmore

Yeah, we've been sending out samples now for a couple weeks.


Chris


----------



## ellisr63




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24513102
> 
> 
> Yeah, we've been sending out samples now for a couple weeks.
> 
> 
> Chris


I believe the sample I got was the XD a few weeks ago.. Could I get one for the UF too?


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ellisr63*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24513290
> 
> 
> I believe the sample I got was the XD a few weeks ago.. Could I get one for the UF too?



Sure, just send a "contact us" message. Jon loves licking envelopes.


Chris


----------



## ellisr63




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24513477
> 
> 
> Sure, just send a "contact us" message. Jon loves licking envelopes.
> 
> 
> Chris


message sent.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I posted before realising there was another page to read and all the info I wanted was there so deleted it










The UF is a great price Chris. Other than the slight drop in gain it looks like a great option with no moire to boot, especially if your seating distance is borderline for the XD material (as in my case).


I've a feeling I may be selling my as yet unused XD material and going for the UF instead. With a 9ft wide screen, most pjs will be plenty bright enough for this material so I won't have to worry about that.


Have you posted in the UK forum? I'll start a thread there for those who may be looking at an alternative to the EN4k.


Cheers


Gary.


----------



## nathan_h

This new material does appear to be a great option.


Not clear yet whether is it color temp and color space neutral, and I eagerly await audio tests to see if the attenuation is linear.


----------



## bkeeler10

Second that on the audio measurements. Also I noticed that it is only a DIY option on the website thus far. I presume it will be available in fixed screen and retractable at some point?


----------



## chriscmore

We're making fixed frames with the UF currently. I will be working on the shopping cart, hopefully over the weekend.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24515375
> 
> 
> This new material does appear to be a great option.
> 
> 
> Not clear yet whether is it color temp and color space neutral, and I eagerly await audio tests to see if the attenuation is linear.



I'll put these together into spec sheets, but in the meanwhile my recent measures show a color temp of XD is 6450K (R/ G/ B=101.2/ 99.2/ 99.7, dE=0.7%), and the UF is 6464K (R/ G/ B=101.2/ 98.8/ 100.0, dE=0.9%)


Audio graphs will come out shortly. Like the EN-4K, the UF must be properly tensioned to meet the audio spec. So, you can't simply tape it to a speaker and measure it like you can with the XD.


Retractables will be a little later, as we need to tweak the construction techniques for this material which is very different than working with the XD.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24515817
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put these together into spec sheets, but in the meanwhile my recent measures show a color temp of XD is 6450K (R/ G/ B=101.2/ 99.2/ 99.7, dE=0.7%), and the UF is 6464K (R/ G/ B=101.2/ 98.8/ 100.0, dE=0.9%)




Looks pretty good - under the perception range of 3dE and I doubt anyone would notice the difference between the two.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24515817
> 
> 
> Audio graphs will come out shortly. Like the EN-4K, the UF must be properly tensioned to meet the audio spec. So, you can't simply tape it to a speaker and measure it like you can with the XD.



Will there be a DIY guide to ensure we get the tension right for best results?











Thanks Chris


Gary


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24515817
> 
> 
> We're making fixed frames with the UF currently. I will be working on the shopping cart, hopefully over the weekend.
> 
> I'll put these together into spec sheets, but in the meanwhile my recent measures show a color temp of XD is 6450K (R/ G/ B=101.2/ 99.2/ 99.7, dE=0.7%), and the UF is 6464K (R/ G/ B=101.2/ 98.8/ 100.0, dE=0.9%)
> 
> 
> Audio graphs will come out shortly. Like the EN-4K, the UF must be properly tensioned to meet the audio spec. So, you can't simply tape it to a speaker and measure it like you can with the XD.
> 
> 
> Retractables will be a little later, as we need to tweak the construction techniques for this material which is very different than working with the XD.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Those are good looking (no pun!) numbers!


So good, I'd guess this screen cannibalizes your EN4k market..... or, one could say, keeps you out in the lead for another generation of screens.


----------



## agaurav

Thanks all for the great discussion. I want to build a fixed frame screen for our dedicated mediaroom. It would be mounted on a wall with in-wall speakers that the previous owners left. The walls in the room are all painted a dark color. I am thinking of approx. 120" size screen in 16:9 ratio.


There are only two rows of seats possible - First row is about 8' away and next is 13'. I am assuming that 1080p resolution would be OK for such close watching distances? Also, the Seymour Center Stage UF seems to fit the bill for my strict budget constraints and AT requirements. The room is dark with no ambient light since there is no TV - only movies. Not sure if I will buy a DLP or LCD projector yet.


Can I staple the *UF* to a wood frame? I plan to just put black felt tape around the frame (not velvet wrapped trim). I want to keep it simple. Does one really need 1x4 or would 1x2 be good enough with a center support? Any other tips or advice would be greatly appreciated. I have the least amount of tools right now and there are so many projects to take care of around the house that I want to keep things simple and doable!!


Best regards and thanks!

Guraaf


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *agaurav*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24522630
> 
> 
> Thanks all for the great discussion. I want to build a fixed frame screen for our dedicated mediaroom. It would be mounted on a wall with in-wall speakers that the previous owners left. The walls in the room are all painted a dark color. I am thinking of approx. 120" size screen in 16:9 ratio.
> 
> 
> There are only two rows of seats possible - First row is about 8' away and next is 13'. I am assuming that 1080p resolution would be OK for such close watching distances? Also, the Seymour Center Stage UF seems to fit the bill for my strict budget constraints and AT requirements. The room is dark with no ambient light since there is no TV - only movies. Not sure if I will buy a DLP or LCD projector yet.
> 
> 
> Can I staple the *UF* to a wood frame? I plan to just put black felt tape around the frame (not velvet wrapped trim). I want to keep it simple. Does one really need 1x4 or would 1x2 be good enough with a center support? Any other tips or advice would be greatly appreciated. I have the least amount of tools right now and there are so many projects to take care of around the house that I want to keep things simple and doable!!
> 
> 
> Best regards and thanks!
> 
> Guraaf



Yeah, the UF uses a weave that's designed to not need edge treatment (pinking, hemming, stitching, etc.), so you can simply straight cut it and staple or grommet away. It has more stretch, so you'd want to put more staples in it. I'd do every 2-2.5" vs. the XD can be more like 3-4".


I like 1x4 for the larger screens, say 100" or larger, or 1x3 for the smaller screens. Poplar is great because you can get it in very nice quality up to 10' long. Don't do a center support. Simply hang the screen from close the center, say 1/3 and 2/3 widths, so that the weight of the frame adds to tension. The only time I'd recommend something tiny and black to support the viewing field (at 1/3, 2/3 widths) is if you're exceeding the 10' hardwood width and therefore have a splice.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## jpeter1093

I have an Accuscreen 106" currently and would LOVE to swap out the screen material for the new Seymour UF material. Did anyone ever figure out a way to attach the Seymour screen to the Accuscreen frame?


----------



## brwsaw

Planning on re tensioning my XD in the next few days. DIY gone wrong.


----------



## agaurav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24523223
> 
> 
> Yeah, the UF uses a weave that's designed to not need edge treatment (pinking, hemming, stitching, etc.), so you can simply straight cut it and staple or grommet away. It has more stretch, so you'd want to put more staples in it. I'd do every 2-2.5" vs. the XD can be more like 3-4".
> 
> 
> I like 1x4 for the larger screens, say 100" or larger, or 1x3 for the smaller screens. Poplar is great because you can get it in very nice quality up to 10' long. Don't do a center support. Simply hang the screen from close the center, say 1/3 and 2/3 widths, so that the weight of the frame adds to tension. The only time I'd recommend something tiny and black to support the viewing field (at 1/3, 2/3 widths) is if you're exceeding the 10' hardwood width and therefore have a splice.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris. Appreciate the prompt reply. Great advice. So would stretching the UF fabric using staples over a frame made out of 1x4 Popular be enough? I am assuming that there isn't a lot of experience or technique required - just some handiwork and patience, correct? And no backing material either?


And UF works for 1080p native resolution, yes? The description doesn't explicitly call it out.


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *agaurav*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24525495
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris. Appreciate the prompt reply. Great advice. So would stretching the UF fabric using staples over a frame made out of 1x4 Popular be enough? I am assuming that there isn't a lot of experience or technique required - just some handiwork and patience, correct? And no backing material either?
> 
> 
> And UF works for 1080p native resolution, yes? The description doesn't explicitly call it out.



Yeah, that should work fine.


All of our materials will resolve 4K resolutions in any normal size.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## IA_Hi_Fi_Guy

Chris, what type of material is the UF made out of and how stretchy is it? Would there be enough stretch with the 60" width to do a 60" high screen?


Also, do you have any plans to offer an AT screen in a shade of gray?


----------



## brwsaw

Happy XD owner here


----------



## bighvy76

Me too 120" xd


----------



## JeffreyJonesBSME




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brwsaw*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24539473
> 
> 
> Happy XD owner here



Me too.


155"


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IA_Hi_Fi_Guy*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24536532
> 
> 
> Chris, what type of material is the UF made out of and how stretchy is it? Would there be enough stretch with the 60" width to do a 60" high screen?
> 
> 
> Also, do you have any plans to offer an AT screen in a shade of gray?



It stretches a fair amount, but you could only get maybe 1/4"-3/8" margin on the top and bottom if you were going with a 60" high image. The factory edging is about 1/2", so I'd recommend you squeeze your image down a tiny bit.


I'm not sure about a gray AT screen. They do well for smaller screens, but then something ultra-fine is needed which will then result in lower gains. The UF is technically sub-unity and therefore a "light gray." I think projectors will have to get a fair amount brighter before a gray colored XD would make sense. But since we have control over the color of the pvc coating, I could do that.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Skylinestar

How far do you guys place your LCR speakers from the screen? Is 1 foot (measured from the front of speaker to the screen) enough?


----------



## nathan_h

With a woven screen, it almost doesn't matter. With a perf screen one neede distance to minimize problems.


----------



## ClayliketheDIRT


I am in no means a sound tech professional, but I was told by some one in my build that one would want their screen at least 6" off the speakers, or the speakers will timbre shift.


----------



## sa

Does SeymourAV have any specific recommendation for optimum distance between speaker and screen for their AT-screens?


----------



## deromax

This was discussed before. The XD material needs almost no distance from the speakers. It's no more opaque to sound than the speaker grill itself.


----------



## chriscmore

The screen materials are designed for use over in-walls, effectively with about an inch of cone to screen distance. You can measure some improvement in the top octave by spacing it 2-3", but the improvement isn't audible.


Most woven screens have the inherent advantage, but there are some that unfortunately measure as bad or worse than microperfs.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Tedd

The hardcore answer is 6".


The speakers will timbre shift if they are less then 6" from the backside of the screen.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tedd*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2580#post_24567189
> 
> 
> The hardcore answer is 6".
> 
> 
> The speakers will timbre shift if they are less then 6" from the backside of the screen.



Measurements indicate this is not the case. Golden ears may indicate otherwise.


I'm not just relying on the manufacturer, who says 3" is ideal (ie, about the distance the screen surface is from the speakers if you use in wall speakers, since the frame places the screen surface about this far from the wall).


Accucal has done his own independent testing of the acoustic properties, as well.


----------



## deromax

Never underevaluate the power of psycho-acoustic. A large part of the hifi industry is based on it actually.


----------



## blastermaster

Hmm, I've got room to move with my speakers. I currently have them as close as I can to the screen and they seem to sound awesome. I'll move them back a bit and see if I notice a difference (highly unlikely). I've also been meaning to test extreme toe-in with them, so maybe this will be a good reason to try. Mostly I've just been enjoying watching movies and amazingly not really messing around with my setup.


----------



## Tedd

Grab a sample of material and play back some full range pink noise and you'll hear the timbre shifting.

It is indeed audible.


----------



## ClayliketheDIRT

I think Tedd means play the pink noise and allow some one to move the screen in front of the speaker at your 3" placement. Then pull it out of the way. Try that for testing. I don't think you will notice a difference by listening to something and then stopping it, then moving the speakers then play it again.


By moving the screen into the fire of the speaker you might just understand and hear the change as it happens.


I have not tried this so I can't tell you for sure if it does change the sound, but I have adjusted my build 3" to accommodate a 6" gap for my speakers to screen.


Yes I lose an inch of size on my screen but the screen is now closer and no one will notice one inch on a 110+" screen.


If some one would try it I would love to hear there findings.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ClayliketheDIRT*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2580#post_24573526
> 
> 
> I think Tedd means play the pink noise and allow some one to move the screen in front of the speaker at your 3" placement. Then pull it out of the way. Try that for testing. I don't think you will notice a difference by listening to something and then stopping it, then moving the speakers then play it again.
> 
> 
> By moving the screen into the fire of the speaker you might just understand and hear the change as it happens.
> 
> 
> I have not tried this so I can't tell you for sure if it does change the sound, but I have adjusted my build 3" to accommodate a 6" gap for my speakers to screen.
> 
> 
> Yes I lose an inch of size on my screen but the screen is now closer and no one will notice one inch on a 110+" screen.
> 
> 
> If some one would try it I would love to hear there findings.



AccuCal measured the impact from 20 hz to 20khz with precise equipment. In the report he summarized the impact as:


"Treble was down 2db at 20khz compared with the level at 2khz...relatively smooth loss from 3khz to 20db."

http://www.accucalhd.com/documents/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf 


In summary, there is a slight volume loss due to the screen material, it is mostly neutral (ie, a very consistent loss in level rather than wild swings in frequency response), and it is +/- 1db variance across the full audible spectrum. Just a reminder, 3db is usually considered the threshold of "that sounds different" but many people can hear a single db in difference.


That's less variation than most speakers introduce to a signal, and far less than even the best rooms introduce to a signal.


So yes there is an impact, but it's pretty minor. This test was run with the material three inches in front of the speaker.


----------



## Tedd

Not removing the sample, but moving the sample in front of the speaker, from 1" out to say 10".


I will add, I have XD and am very pro XD. It gets my recommendation but that comes with the

the information for one to make an informed decision. I gave up the 6" depth in my small room

where every inch of space was given careful consideration.


The slight volume loss is a non-event for most.


----------



## sa

So the new CenterStage UF is slightly less accousticly transparent than the XD (-2.2dB vs -1.4dB). Is that noticabel? I guess it doesn't really matter as long as the attenuation is even.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2550#post_24512782
> 
> 
> The UF has about the same gain as our Enlightor-4K: nearly 1 when benchmarked against the other materials (measures the same as Screen Innovation's 1.1 gain Maestro, SnapAV/Dragonfly's 1.3 gain disaster of a screen material, and +14% brighter than Elite's 1.1 gain "4K"), but the unbenchmarked spec is 0.8.
> 
> 
> The UF gain is about 20% lower than the XD, which is the brightest weave available. With brighter projectors such as Epson, a lower gain will have the advantage of deeper black levels. This material is developed for the closest of seating distances, which are typically not the 150"+ sizes we see, where more modest screen sizes should be lower gain.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Hi Chris,


Is it possible to create a tighter weave than the XD but still have about as much gain. Losing 20% gain is quite a lot. One of the biggest draw of the XD is that it appears to be the brightest AT screen available. Getting the UF might be like getting the EN4K if they have the same gain.


----------



## coolgeek

Also, are the masking panels also acoustically transparent?


----------



## chriscmore

To reduce the thread diameter for an ultra-fine weave, say from .015" diameter to .003" (just a guess - I'm exhibiting at the PNWCEE show), you can't keep the pvc extruded coating. The pvc in the XD is what is doped with reflective powder to achieve the higher reflectivity, giving it that slight pearlescent look. If you simply reduce the openness factor to "tighten" the weave or chase gain, the acoustical transparency may no longer be adequate. I've measured "tight" weaves with over 6dB of attenuation to the tweeter. These products give the AT screen type a bad reputation. I talk daily with people who spec and install for a living and they lament that they hate AT for ruining the video AND the audio. I completely empathize with their frustrations; mine were the same.


The UF is still about 10% higher gain than the EN-4K. Keep in mind that lower gain also means deeper black levels, so it's not just an "awesomeness" rating. Whiter whites or blacker blacks; spec the screen properly to the application.


The masking panels are available either as Millibel AT or Fidelio non-AT.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tedd*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2580#post_24570125
> 
> 
> Grab a sample of material and play back some full range pink noise and you'll hear the timbre shifting.
> 
> It is indeed audible.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ClayliketheDIRT*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2580#post_24573526
> 
> 
> I think Tedd means play the pink noise and allow some one to move the screen in front of the speaker at your 3" placement. Then pull it out of the way. Try that for testing. I don't think you will notice a difference by listening to something and then stopping it, then moving the speakers then play it again.
> 
> 
> By moving the screen into the fire of the speaker you might just understand and hear the change as it happens.
> 
> 
> I have not tried this so I can't tell you for sure if it does change the sound, but I have adjusted my build 3" to accommodate a 6" gap for my speakers to screen.
> 
> 
> Yes I lose an inch of size on my screen but the screen is now closer and no one will notice one inch on a 110+" screen.
> 
> 
> If some one would try it I would love to hear there findings.



Two things that should be noted. One, if the material is not stretched, it will not have the same sonic characteristics. Two, when placing the material in front of the speaker, you are attenuating the SPL. So a lot of the difference is just SPL. I guess a truer test would be two speakers, one with stretched fabric in front of it and the second speaker with nothing. Then level match the SPL between the two speakers. Now, I bet you can't tell a difference when done as a blind test.


----------



## DavidK442

I received my 8" X 11" sample of Center Stage UF in the mail today. (Thank you very much Jon for the prompt service.)

For the past 3 years I have played around with various DIY acoustically transparent screen materials.

Tonight I rigged up a test board to compare Center Stage XD with the new Center Stage UF material.

What follows are my thoughts and observations. I have no video test equipment and made no attempt to listen for audible differences.

Everyone has different setups, different priorities and different visual acuity so please feel free to comment and rebut away.

My subjective opinion will remain exactly that.


*Center Stage UF vs. Center Stage XD*

*Gain* - As spec'd, the XD obviously has more gain and is noticeably brighter. In direct comparison this is not a subtle difference. The brightest image will typically appear to be the best, at least at first. After watching a few scenes though, and noticing how the XD elevated the black levels on my cheap DLP projector (BenQ W1070) I realized that for my setup the less bright UF provided a better balance.

*Texture* - I must be sensitive to texture, because in bright images (camera pans of the sky are the worst) at my relatively close viewing distance of 9.5 feet the XD weave is visible. This was absolutely not the case with the UF. At any sane viewing distance texture was simply not an issue.

*Detail Resolution* - The easiest way for me to determine detail resolution is by examining the visible pixel structure on my DLP projector. With the Center Stage XD material there is a resolution of fine detail that rivals even a solid screen. In comparison, the UF fabric had softer edges. With my nose on the screen this was obvious, beyond any difference caused by gain. From my viewing distance the pixels were obvious on the XD sample, whereas they were present but more subtle with the UF. On static images this translated into more detail for the XD, but with regular video the differences in detail were overshadowed by differences in brightness and texture. How this translates to an entire screen of fine detail at normal seating distance I can only speculate.


*Summary*


If I had a higher end projector with better pixel fill and excellent black level I would sit 11 feet away from an 11 foot wide Center Stage XD screen and be completely happy.

In my current setup, using a bright DLP projector with mediocre black level and incomplete pixel fill, sitting 9.5 feet away from a 9.5 foot wide screen, the Center Stage UF seems just about right.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Nice review. Thanks for posting.


Gary


----------



## jeffleonard

That's quite a review considering the size of the samples.


EDIT: This comment not really relevant now that the review is edited.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

On the right hand image, I can see lots of little black dots in the pixels, but I can't see them in the left hand image. Are the dots the DLP mirror hinge points or something else?


Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Thanks for the reply.


The holes looked too round to be the gaps in the weave, so thanks for clarifying.


The UF does give a softer look compared to the XD, but is better than Spandex in that regard from what you've seen, so is an improvement for not a great deal more money IMHO.


My seating distance will be around 8.5 feet from the XD screen material I have, but I've a feeling the UF may be a better bet. I'm wondering how noticeable, if at all, the softer image will be on the UF.


Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

It's going to be an 8,5 foot wide 2.35 screen. As you say, at that size, most projectors are going to produce a bright enough image for the lower gain to not be a problem. If I have to reduce the lumens down to get to an image brightness I like (around 12fL or less), then I can use an ND filter, and remove it later for 3D if necessary - but 3D isn't something that I'm overly into..


I think the only concern may be the detail level, but with moving video, it's less noticeable. Those using Spandex don't seem to have any issues with detail, or at least don't seem to say much about that, so with the UF being a step up, it doesn't look like it's going to be a big issue for most people who need to sit closer and can see the weave of the XD. In which case you have to pick your poison - slightly noticeable weave on brighter scenes, or slightly softer image which may or may not be noticeable during a movie.


Cheers


Gary


----------



## jeffleonard




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2580#post_24600009
> 
> 
> If you have had a chance to compare the UF to your XD screen using a larger sample I would love to hear your thoughts. Maybe the results are different.



I haven't seen the UF material, but the reduction in gain would currently be a deal-breaker for me.


I went with a 150" wide 2.35 curved XD screen, based on reviewing member's comments here. My thought process was to get the biggest screen that fits in our theater. I know that I will upgrade projectors eventually, but the theater & screen size will remain constant. Future projector lumen output will likely improve with new bulb technology, but I needed the XD's gain to in order for the screen size to work with current projector tech. I really didn't want to reduce the screen size. The loss in gain on UF and the fact that I wasn't willing to spend the bucks on a 1st gen 4K projector locked me into the XD.


Long story short, the XD screen looks great with our Sony HW50ES in high lamp mode. There's not much difference between low/high lamp modes, but I have a spare bulb on the shelf...why not go high?


One final note...I think that a person would need to be OCD for the XD weave to bother them at normal viewing distance. I really never notice the texture unless I walk up to the screen. If you're sitting 6-7' from the screen, why bother with front projection at all?


EDIT: I have the black backing fabric on my screen...perhaps that reduces the effect? I doubt it. My seating distance comment is general & not directed at anyone in particular.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeffleonard*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2580#post_24602428
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2580#post_24600009
> 
> 
> If you have had a chance to compare the UF to your XD screen using a larger sample I would love to hear your thoughts. Maybe the results are different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One final note...I think that a person would need to be OCD for the XD weave to bother them at normal viewing distance. I really never notice the texture unless I walk up to the screen. If you're sitting 6-7' from the screen, why bother with front projection at all?
> 
> 
> EDIT: I have the black backing fabric on my screen...perhaps that reduces the effect? I doubt it. My seating distance comment is general & not directed at anyone in particular.
Click to expand...


Some people find some things distracting and it can take them out of the movie - image artifacts for example, or the weave if it becomes visible. I don't like to see either so I set up my system accordingly. I doubt many people have their seating as close as you say, but with smaller screens some people may like a more immersive experience so sit at around SMPTEs closest recommended seating distance which is around 2 x the image height (I know a few people who sit at that seating distance ratio). I have sat at that distance with some bigger screens and it's a very enjoyable and immersive experience, but with my room limitations and screen size that would put me at just over 7 feet away. That would also compromise audio I would think.


There aren't that many affordable 2.35 flat screen TVs available at the moment at the kind of sizes we'd like, so a projector with an A lens is the only way to achieve that right now.


Gary


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> Some people find some things distracting and it can take them out of the movie - image artifacts for example, or the weave if it becomes visible. I don't like to see either so I set up my system accordingly. I doubt many people have their seating as close as you say, but with smaller screens some people may like a more immersive experience so sit at around SMPTEs closest recommended seating distance which is around 2 x the image height (I know a few people who sit at that seating distance ratio). I have sat at that distance with some bigger screens and it's a very enjoyable and immersive experience, but with my room limitations and screen size that would put me at just over 7 feet away. That would also compromise audio I would think.
> 
> 
> There aren't that many affordable 2.35 flat screen TVs available at the moment at the kind of sizes we'd like, so a projector with an A lens is the only way to achieve that right now.
> 
> 
> Gary



Haha, too true. My first screen was a rolled on black widow formula. It took some getting used to the glittery look, but despite my meticulous efforts, I could see roller marks in really bright scenes (damn that metallic paint). It completely took me out of the movie and made me loathe bright scenes in movies. Even after getting a new screen it took me a while to enjoy bright outdoor scenes for fear of seeing some imperfection that could take me out of the movie. If you are gonna be sitting that close to the screen I'd say the minor loss in sharpness is less important than seeing the weave.


----------



## jeffleonard

Agreed on the distraction of imperfections on the screen. I did several DIY screens over the years with different paints. Similar to DIY remodeling, you always know where the "little secrets" are. On a screen, there's no hiding. Another reason I went with a manufactured screen this go around.


Gary, you will probably see the weave on the XD at your viewing distance. It is totally invisible to me until I'm about 8-9 feet away. Even then, it is easily mistakable for film grain.


----------



## coolgeek

Anyone know if using the Curved Seymour screens in 16:9 format and the projector at a distance of 14 feet is suitable? Is there a way to calculate the angles?


Also, who do I contact to order the screens?


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolgeek*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2580#post_24632402
> 
> 
> Anyone know if using the Curved Seymour screens in 16:9 format and the projector at a distance of 14 feet is suitable? Is there a way to calculate the angles?
> 
> 
> Also, who do I contact to order the screens?



You did not say what size screen or which projector?


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24633942
> 
> 
> You did not say what size screen or which projector?



Screen us 10 feet wide. Projector the sony 500es.


Today I took a piece od string and pulled it from 15 feet away from an imaginary screen and used 6 inches of curve and see where the string ended up. It was 2.5 inches. Not sure if this was a valid method


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolgeek*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2580#post_24632402
> 
> 
> Anyone know if using the Curved Seymour screens in 16:9 format and the projector at a distance of 14 feet is suitable? Is there a way to calculate the angles?
> 
> 
> Also, who do I contact to order the screens?



Contact Seymour on their web site. They have a whole set of ordering instructions both for standard and custom offerings.


----------



## nathan_h

I've sent a note to Seymour but figured I'd pick the brains of folks here. For the EN4k Screens, they use a french cleat system for mounting.


Does anyone know where I could buy a couple EXTRA french cleats that are compatible with the ones it comes with?


----------



## chriscmore

For those in the Chicago area, I'd encourage you to check out the AXPONA show of high-end audio this weekend. We'll have our new Center Stage UF screen, with an Avielo native 2.35 projector (calibrated by Ken Whitcomb), iRule (Steve Crabb) and audio by Seaton Sound (Mark Seaton). It's on the lower level - streeter. It'll be sure to impress you.

http://www.axpona.com/ 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## spuj

Chris, do you think the Clip Swal system will work to mount and tension the UF and XD properly?


----------



## chriscmore

Yeah, those should work well. The XD might be a bit stiff to get in there, but it looks like a good tensioning system.


Chris


----------



## coolgeek

Hi chris. I just ordered a curved screen from jon. Is it possible to include a french cleat system.


----------



## bighvy76

What can I use to clean the xd material. Like if a drink splashed on it?


----------



## chriscmore

Tell Jon whatever you need and we'll take care of it.


To clean the XD screen, simply wash with a soapy rag or toothbrush. For the worst stains, you can use some kitchen/bath cleaner that has bleach in it, and then wash it off. Also, you can flip it over and use the other side since both sides spec the same.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## bighvy76

Awesome thanks. I didn't realize it was that durable.


----------



## Mark Seaton




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24647788
> 
> 
> For those in the Chicago area, I'd encourage you to check out the AXPONA show of high-end audio this weekend. We'll have our new Center Stage UF screen, with an Avielo native 2.35 projector (calibrated by Ken Whitcomb), iRule (Steve Crabb) and audio by Seaton Sound (Mark Seaton). It's on the lower level - streeter. It'll be sure to impress you.
> 
> http://www.axpona.com/
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Hi Chris,


A quick public thank you for the help with the screen this weekend at Axpona. Ken Whitcomb did a great job setting up the display and visitors were impressed by both the picture and sound. Being a significant 2 channel enthusiast crowd I got quite a kick out of how many times we were asked "Where's the center channel?"










Here are a couple pictures of the 7 speaker, 6 subwoofer, 22,000W system assembled in our 28' square, 10' tall demo room:


From the seats (the vertical overscan was before Ken had the Lumagen in the chain):
 


A quick panoramic from my phone:
 


I look forward to a chance to assemble something even more impressive in the future, and we will most certainly have black velvet on the walls next go around!


Thanks again,


----------



## bkeeler10

Wow, that's an impressive-looking setup. Wish I could be there to see/hear it!


----------



## Lexx13


Hello, everybody.

Have spent 3 days already trying to buy 100" motorized (220V) AT screen and have failed (((   Most of advices here is to buy from seymourav.com  but  purchasing process on the site is hard and they don't reply on emails ((


----------



## Glenn Baumann

That does not sound right to me... Seymour is known for some of the the best customer service around!










Call Chris at 515-450-5694 and/or email him at [email protected]


You will get a response and he will probably also chime in here at AVS.



...Glenn


----------



## chriscmore

It's true that retractables are not in the shopping cart system because they are a more customized product, but I don't show any inquiries in my Inbox for a 100" 220v screen. However, I do believe AV Science is taking proper care of you. Feel free to ask any questions you might have via email, phone or these pages.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## dropzone7

I finally got the anamorphic lens I have always wanted. ISCOIIIL on a Marantz branded Panamorph sled. I am going to see if I can make a small plexi replacement logo plate that says "ISCO" to replace the Marantz. I bought this setup from a forum member here to be used with my JVC projector (X55R). Got it all mounted over the weekend and now all I need is a screen! It has taken me forever through incrimental upgrades, wheeling and dealing and patience to get the equipment I have now. I don't know how some of you guys drop this kind of money on everything at once. I'm really tempted to try DIY for the screen but after all this time and money invested I hate to cheap out if it will compromise the final look. I have done DIY screen in the past but nothing in 2.35 and never accoustically transparent. As cool as a curved screen would look, I know I can't afford that. The amount of pincushion I have will be easily hidden in the screen masking so flat screen it is. I need to get a sample of the new material to see how it compares to the XD.


----------



## blastermaster

Grats, dropzone! My upgrading has been incremental as well. I just recently upgraded from a Home Theater Brothers lens to a Panamorph UH480. It was such a smoking deal I couldn't pass it up. That Isco looks awesome. You probably don't need a curved screen, but I'm telling you it is so cool and the lens gives you a legitimate excuse. I made mine myself using spandex initially, then upgraded to the XD material. All in it was under $500 for a 138" curved screen (check out my build thread if you're interested). The curve takes some getting used to, but now I love it. A side benefit is that it seemed to me that there was less light bouncing off the side walls because of the curve thus better contrast. I'm sure you'll be happy with a flat screen as well, but I thought I'd chime in.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24764177
> 
> 
> Grats, dropzone! My upgrading has been incremental as well. I just recently upgraded from a Home Theater Brothers lens to a Panamorph UH480. It was such a smoking deal I couldn't pass it up. That Isco looks awesome. You probably don't need a curved screen, but I'm telling you it is so cool and the lens gives you a legitimate excuse. I made mine myself using spandex initially, then upgraded to the XD material. All in it was under $500 for a 138" curved screen (check out my build thread if you're interested). The curve takes some getting used to, but now I love it. A side benefit is that it seemed to me that there was less light bouncing off the side walls because of the curve thus better contrast. I'm sure you'll be happy with a flat screen as well, but I thought I'd chime in.



I am glad I got a curved then


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24647788
> 
> 
> For those in the Chicago area, I'd encourage you to check out the AXPONA show of high-end audio this weekend. We'll have our new Center Stage UF screen, with an Avielo native 2.35 projector (calibrated by Ken Whitcomb), iRule (Steve Crabb) and audio by Seaton Sound (Mark Seaton). It's on the lower level - streeter. It'll be sure to impress you.
> 
> http://www.axpona.com/
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Good old Ken! Had him at my home a few times over the years to calibrate an old NEC XG-852 CRT projector. He works magic. I remember watching him calibrate and tweak the machine and thinking how he accomplished more in a few hours than I had done in months of struggling with the projector. I remarked to him on how amazing it was and he just looked at me with this sly grin and said "It's what I do".


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24764177
> 
> 
> Grats, dropzone! My upgrading has been incremental as well. I just recently upgraded from a Home Theater Brothers lens to a Panamorph UH480. It was such a smoking deal I couldn't pass it up. That Isco looks awesome. You probably don't need a curved screen, but I'm telling you it is so cool and the lens gives you a legitimate excuse. I made mine myself using spandex initially, then upgraded to the XD material. All in it was under $500 for a 138" curved screen (check out my build thread if you're interested). The curve takes some getting used to, but now I love it. A side benefit is that it seemed to me that there was less light bouncing off the side walls because of the curve thus better contrast. I'm sure you'll be happy with a flat screen as well, but I thought I'd chime in.


I built my flat screen using Seymor XD for a little over $550 from Chriss and Jon it is 15 degree diaginal cut with gromets and bands with a minimulast wall check my screen build.


----------



## nathan_h

The new 4K material scores very well in the latest industry wide independent third party testing:

http://www.homecinemaguru.com/new-accucal-projection-screen-material-test-report/


----------



## DavidK442




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24796607
> 
> 
> The new 4K material scores very well in the latest industry wide independent third party testing:
> 
> http://www.homecinemaguru.com/new-accucal-projection-screen-material-test-report/



I have referenced the old report countless times. A true benchmark. Glad to see they have updated. Thanks for the link.


----------



## ellisr63

Just placed my order for a XD AT Grommet Screen - 180'' wide image - 2.40"1 ... I am first on the list for when they get the next shipment... Now to start looking for the aluminum to make the screen frame. Does anyone know where you can get the angle brackets that go inside the rectangular tubing? I think we will be going 1x4 tubing with 2 center supports. If anyone has any info that might help in making a aluminum screen frame please let me know.


----------



## ellisr63




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lexx13*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24685487
> 
> 
> Hello, everybody.
> 
> Have spent 3 days already trying to buy 100" motorized (220V) AT screen and have failed (((   Most of advices here is to buy from seymourav.com  but  purchasing process on the site is hard and they don't reply on emails ((


Strange... They responded to me in about an hour. Send Chris an email.


----------



## DavidK442




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ellisr63*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24798016
> 
> 
> Just placed my order for a XD AT Grommet Screen - 180'' wide image - 2.40"



Yowza! What are you using to light a 15' wide unity gain screen? The BenQ W1070?


----------



## ellisr63




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidK442*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24798133
> 
> 
> Yowza! What are you using to light a 15' wide unity gain screen? The BenQ W1070?


What I am doing is making a screen wall and then acoustically masking it down to whatever my current projector can handle... This way i will not have to buy another screen down the road if I get one that can handle the huge screen. I am using a Panasonic ae8000. The BenQ w1070 will be delegated to the MB with the 134" Jamestown screen.


----------



## coolgeek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ellisr63*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24798563
> 
> 
> What I am doing is making a screen wall and then acoustically masking it down to whatever my current projector can handle... This way i will not have to buy another screen down the road if I get one that can handle the huge screen. I am using a Panasonic ae8000. The BenQ w1070 will be delegated to the MB with the 134" Jamestown screen.



What a great idea. Future proof the screen. I wished I got a bigger screen


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24796607
> 
> 
> The new 4K material scores very well in the latest industry wide independent third party testing:
> 
> http://www.homecinemaguru.com/new-accucal-projection-screen-material-test-report/



Interesting. I was starting to lean more towards the UF material because of my close front row seating distance (app. 9 feet) but he doesn't recommend it for screens larger than 8' to 9' wide. I'm planning on the 130" wide 2.35 fixed from from Seymour so it sounds like light loss would be too severe for a screen this size. I like the XD sample I have and I don't think the weave will be that visible from my front row. The second row will be occupied more often anyway so I don't think it's worth the light loss trade off to make the weave slightly less visible for the front row that will be occupied on rare occasion.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24799766
> 
> 
> Interesting. I was starting to lean more towards the UF material because of my close front row seating distance (app. 9 feet) but he doesn't recommend it for screens larger than 8' to 9' wide. I'm planning on the 130" wide 2.35 fixed from from Seymour so it sounds like light loss would be too severe for a screen this size. I like the XD sample I have and I don't think the weave will be that visible from my front row. The second row will be occupied more often anyway so I don't think it's worth the light loss trade off to make the weave slightly less visible for the front row that will be occupied on rare occasion.



Get free samples of all of them, throw them up on a dark wall and view them in a dark room with your projector showing a snow scene or something similar and see what you think.


----------



## dropzone7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24799892
> 
> 
> Get free samples of all of them, throw them up on a dark wall and view them in a dark room with your projector showing a snow scene or something similar and see what you think.



Yeah, I should get a sample of the UF. It's just hard to make a judgement based on a copy paper sized piece of material. I just need to pull the trigger and get something. I have a vinyl banner the same size as the screen I want which a friend of mine made. He works at a print shop and even put the black borders around it and grommets. Problem is that it is not accoustically transparent (far from it) and it reflects a lot of light but not evenly. The brightness is kind of addictive but I could never live with it as a permanent solution. Too shiny and I can see the texture of the material. It has been useful for placement of other things in the room however.


----------



## nathan_h

You can pay a little money and get larger samples if you want, but even at 8x11" piece of screen (remember to put a black backing on it!) will let you know if you can see the weave from your seating distance -- which is perhaps the second most critical factor.


You'll also get a sense of relative brightness (the other critical factor) though that can be deceptive with a bright background etc.


----------



## cw5billwade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ellisr63*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24798016
> 
> 
> Just placed my order for a XD AT Grommet Screen - 180'' wide image - 2.40"1 ... I am first on the list for when they get the next shipment... Now to start looking for the aluminum to make the screen frame. Does anyone know where you can get the angle brackets that go inside the rectangular tubing? I think we will be going 1x4 tubing with 2 center supports. If anyone has any info that might help in making a aluminum screen frame please let me know.


I built a minimulast wall and frame out of wood it worked really wall on my 126" w/gromments



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ellisr63*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24798563
> 
> 
> What I am doing is making a screen wall and then acoustically masking it down to whatever my current projector can handle... This way i will not have to buy another screen down the road if I get one that can handle the huge screen. I am using a Panasonic ae8000. The BenQ w1070 will be delegated to the MB with the 134" Jamestown screen.


You will love the pannasonic it has no problem lighting up the 126" wide screen. I use D cenima with total light control projected from around 16'6" (I have seen you in the panasonic thread latly did you get your issues solved?)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24799766
> 
> 
> Interesting. I was starting to lean more towards the UF material because of my close front row seating distance (app. 9 feet) but he doesn't recommend it for screens larger than 8' to 9' wide. I'm planning on the 130" wide 2.35 fixed from from Seymour so it sounds like light loss would be too severe for a screen this size. I like the XD sample I have and I don't think the weave will be that visible from my front row. The second row will be occupied more often anyway so I don't think it's worth the light loss trade off to make the weave slightly less visible for the front row that will be occupied on rare occasion.


I sit 10'6" from a 126" wide screen you will not have any issues I think.


----------



## ellisr63

We will find out if I have a problem with the mount this weekend when the mount and projector arrive.


Sent from my SGH-T879 using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dropzone7*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2610#post_24799766
> 
> 
> Interesting. I was starting to lean more towards the UF material because of my close front row seating distance (app. 9 feet) but he doesn't recommend it for screens larger than 8' to 9' wide. I'm planning on the 130" wide 2.35 fixed from from Seymour so it sounds like light loss would be too severe for a screen this size. I like the XD sample I have and I don't think the weave will be that visible from my front row. The second row will be occupied more often anyway so I don't think it's worth the light loss trade off to make the weave slightly less visible for the front row that will be occupied on rare occasion.



The reference of 8' to 9' is with respect to the seating distance to the screen due to his opinion of the material's texture, not screen size. The screen's maximum size would be instead dictated by seating distance, the room and the projector capabilities. The UF is about 20% lower gain than the XD, but with a reasonable screen size for 9' viewing I'd likely recommend the UF. If the "money seat" were say, 13' back and you were pushing the screen size and interested in 3D, then the XD starts to be the better choice.


Either way, we guarantee your satisfaction so if one doesn't work as well we can easily swap it for the other.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## ellisr63




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cw5billwade*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2640#post_24800105
> 
> 
> I built a minimulast wall and frame out of wood it worked really wall on my 126" w/gromments
> 
> You will love the pannasonic it has no problem lighting up the 126" wide screen. I use D cenima with total light control projected from around 16'6" (I have seen you in the panasonic thread latly did you get your issues solved?)
> 
> I sit 10'6" from a 126" wide screen you will not have any issues I think.


Our new room will be a batcave... 100% light control.


----------



## brwsaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ellisr63*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2640#post_24802026
> 
> 
> Our new room will be a batcave... 100% light control.



They are awesome.

We avoided can lights in the ceiling to avoid as much noise transfer through the floor as possible. Just in case you're thinking the same thing I'd suggest you get a good flash light and always store it in the same place. Same goes for your remotes.

No regrets.


----------



## ellisr63




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brwsaw*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2640#post_24802296
> 
> 
> They are awesome.
> 
> We avoided can lights in the ceiling to avoid as much noise transfer through the floor as possible. Just in case you're thinking the same thing I'd suggest you get a good flash light and always store it in the same place. Same goes for your remotes.
> 
> No regrets.


We are putting LEDs in the soffit for lighting... Lights will go on before and after the movie. During a movie we will only have rope LED along the floor behind the front row of seats.


----------



## brwsaw

Black is black.

I find even a night light can be too much.


Wish someone would invent silent popcorn, then we'd be all set.


----------



## chriscmore

With enough butter, your popcorn would be silent. 


Chris


----------



## ellisr63

Today i have been shopping for materials to make the screen frame, and this is what i have found out. for a 180" x 75" frame...


To have the basic frame made out of 1x3" aluminum welded... It is about $700

To make the basic frame out of Extruded T channel Aluminum... It is about $400 Here is the stuff I am looking at... http://www.automation4less.com/store/proddetail.asp?prod=650001 I saw where someone else did one a few years back on a smaller frame and used 1.5x1.5", and said that if you need more strength you could go 1x2"... Would I really need a 1x3 or should I go with the smaller size?



Pluses of the Extruded aluminum...


1:No need to drill and tap 80 holes for the pegs to hold the o-rings that connect the screen grommets to the frame


2: I can easily use "L" brackets to stand off the screen from a 2x4 frame behind the screen frame... Plus it means I don't have to use as large of a piece of aluminum as it is already supported to prevent sagging.


3: Cost of the aluminum is is 1/2 of the basic welded frame.


4: easy to attach a would frame to as it can be done with t-nuts.


5: Easy to locate the t-nuts in relation to the grommets.


Negatives of extruded aluminum...


1: buying 80 t-nuts, and corner connectors.



Pluses of welded frame:


1: Rock solid construction


2: Drill the holes for the frame anywhere rather than have to line up the screws with the "t" slots.


Negatives of welded frame:


1: Awkward to transport to our home.


2: Have to accurately drill, and tap 80 holes for dowels (or something for the o-rings to attach to).


So it looks like it is the most economical to go the Extruded Aluminum route for ease of construction, time, and price. I am thinking of using standoffs every 3-5 feet... I am thinking this will keep the frame true, and prevent the scree frame from sagging.


Does anyone see any possible problems with this scenario?


----------



## brwsaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore*  /t/842769/the-official-seymourav-center-stage-screen-thread/2640#post_24803607
> 
> 
> With enough butter, your popcorn would be silent.
> 
> 
> Chris



My popcorn is a non issue (butter good). Its the evil minions in front of and beside me think its a game, lets see who can be the loudest...


----------



## chriscmore

If you haven't seen it, David Beck's theater just won the home theater of the month. There is a fantastic degree of consideration to every element. This one should be archived as Best Practices 101. They should have a CEDIA class where they simply page through and take notes.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1534823/ht-of-the-month-the-savoy 


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## dropzone7

chriscmore said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by *dropzone7*
> 
> Interesting. I was starting to lean more towards the UF material because of my close front row seating distance (app. 9 feet) but he doesn't recommend it for screens larger than 8' to 9' wide. I'm planning on the 130" wide 2.35 fixed from from Seymour so it sounds like light loss would be too severe for a screen this size. I like the XD sample I have and I don't think the weave will be that visible from my front row. The second row will be occupied more often anyway so I don't think it's worth the light loss trade off to make the weave slightly less visible for the front row that will be occupied on rare occasion.
> 
> 
> The reference of 8' to 9' is with respect to the seating distance to the screen due to his opinion of the material's texture, not screen size. The screen's maximum size would be instead dictated by seating distance, the room and the projector capabilities. The UF is about 20% lower gain than the XD, but with a reasonable screen size for 9' viewing I'd likely recommend the UF. If the "money seat" were say, 13' back and you were pushing the screen size and interested in 3D, then the XD starts to be the better choice.
> 
> Either way, we guarantee your satisfaction so if one doesn't work as well we can easily swap it for the other.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


 
Thanks Chris. The "money seat" is about 13-14' back and my projector will do 3D though that was not a factor in my buying decision there. My interest in it will be minimal at most. I know I would be pushing screen size for 3D and would need every bit of brightness so the XD is probably what I will end up with. Not to mention, I'm guessing that after calibration my projector will end up much less bright even in 2D viewing so that's another reason to go 1.0 gain or more I suppose. The room is pretty much a batcave so I don't think light levels will be a problem.


----------



## chriscmore

Here's an unaltered screenshot of the new Matinee Black material. I've been enjoying working on these new materials over the past couple years, even though they're not AT. In my world, every home theater should be a dedicated, darkened, wall full of audio/video perfection (btw, looking forward to David's open "theater" tomorrow!), but also need to realize that not everyone can have true batcaves. There are ceilings that the boss won't allow to be painted, and windows that need stay open.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## smuggymba

coolgeek said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by *blastermaster*
> 
> Grats, dropzone! My upgrading has been incremental as well. I just recently upgraded from a Home Theater Brothers lens to a Panamorph UH480. It was such a smoking deal I couldn't pass it up. That Isco looks awesome. You probably don't need a curved screen, but I'm telling you it is so cool and the lens gives you a legitimate excuse. I made mine myself using spandex initially, then upgraded to the XD material. All in it was under $500 for a 138" curved screen (check out my build thread if you're interested). The curve takes some getting used to, but now I love it. A side benefit is that it seemed to me that there was less light bouncing off the side walls because of the curve thus better contrast. I'm sure you'll be happy with a flat screen as well, but I thought I'd chime in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad I got a curved then


I'm sure movies look awesome on a curved screen. What about sports?


----------



## Al Toid

Hey guys I have a quick question. I am getting ready to build my first theater. I have been in contact with Jamestown and received conflicting information from him and a few other sites. He informed me his screen with the Center Stage XD do not include the optional black backing. He did state that it could be added for an additional fee, in the $200-$350 range. I am wondering if the optional black backing is needed. I will be building a false wall about 32" deep, with Klipsch Speakers behind it. I love the Idea of the Center Stage XD fabric, but am not sure if I need the black backing or, if I should opt to get it without. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## chriscmore

Al Toid said:


> Hey guys I have a quick question. I am getting ready to build my first theater. I have been in contact with Jamestown and received conflicting information from him and a few other sites. He informed me his screen with the Center Stage XD do not include the optional black backing. He did state that it could be added for an additional fee, in the $200-$350 range. I am wondering if the optional black backing is needed. I will be building a false wall about 32" deep, with Klipsch Speakers behind it. I love the Idea of the Center Stage XD fabric, but am not sure if I need the black backing or, if I should opt to get it without. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


I'd guess only about 5% of XD screens need the secondary black backing layer, as it's typically easy to adequately darken the surfaces behind the screen. If you can get it about 75% darkened, be it gray, brown, maroon, navy, or whatever, it will be enough. Black is of course ideal, but the XD is more light opaque than others due to its tighter weave and reflective thread coating. We always recommend paint or wall treatments first.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Al Toid

chriscmore said:


> I'd guess only about 5% of XD screens need the secondary black backing layer, as it's typically easy to adequately darken the surfaces behind the screen. If you can get it about 75% darkened, be it gray, brown, maroon, navy, or whatever, it will be enough. Black is of course ideal, but the XD is more light opaque than others due to its tighter weave and reflective thread coating. We always recommend paint or wall treatments first.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris! I can treat both the back walls and custom speaker stands in black. If that is the case, then I will save myself the extra money and get the XD Screen without the backing. I must admit, I am very excited to get an XD Screen! I have wanted one ever since I started planning this, but was too afraid to make my own. I'll be pairing this with a BenQ w1070 in a completely light controlled environment. Thanks again!


----------



## Al Toid

Alright, one more question. I notice that Seymour now offer a curved frame. I will be ordering a 16x9 screen and using it only with the benq w1070 projector. I will not be using any other lenses on it. With this in mind, is the curved screen actually better for all applications? Or is this just for people with anamorphic lenses? I really want to do it right. I know the XD material is the way to go for sure! I am a little confused on if the curved screen will distort a normal picture or is the preferred way to go. Thanks guys!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

You usually only use a curved screen with an anamorphic lens to counter the pincushion when the lens is in place for 2.35 presentations. With a 16:9 screen and no lens, there's no need for a curved screen unless you like the look of the screen compared to a flat one. With a curved screen you will have to overscan the image a little to hide the barrel distortion.

Sometimes the curve can be useful for countering reflections onto light coloured walls, but I've never meaured or seen any measures that say how good that is in comparison.

Gary


----------



## Al Toid

Gary Lightfoot said:


> You usually only use a curved screen with an anamorphic lens to counter the pincushion when the lens is in place for 2.35 presentations. With a 16:9 screen and no lens, there's no need for a curved screen unless you like the look of the screen compared to a flat one. With a curved screen you will have to overscan the image a little to hide the barrel distortion.
> 
> Sometimes the curve can be useful for countering reflections onto light coloured walls, but I've never meaured or seen any measures that say how good that is in comparison.
> 
> Gary


Thanks Gary! This is very informative and useful information. I do like the look of the curved screen, but it seems like a flat surface is best for me.


----------



## pstam

Regarding the black backing material, is anything like that necessary with a fixed frame hung directly up against the wall? Is there any adverse effect to having AT material directly backed up to a bare surface? I'm thinking about light reflecting back into the viewing screen, etc. because of the holes in AT screens.


----------



## clausdk

Are there any retractable UF owners here?

I was wondering about reflections and leakage from a flat panel and some gear behind such a screen.

In my situation I would have a plasma panel and some hardware otherwise dark fabric. I have the UF sample and it is clearly semi transparent. I only have a small sample so it is difficult to test. My understanding is that UF retractable does not have black backing.

Any experience?


----------



## chriscmore

pstam said:


> Regarding the black backing material, is anything like that necessary with a fixed frame hung directly up against the wall? Is there any adverse effect to having AT material directly backed up to a bare surface? I'm thinking about light reflecting back into the viewing screen, etc. because of the holes in AT screens.


The vast majority don't need the black backing layer. You can hang the screen right over in-wall speakers, as only 1" clearance to the drivers is minimum. If the colors behind the screen are dark, light reflection won't be an issue.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

clausdk said:


> Are there any retractable UF owners here?
> 
> I was wondering about reflections and leakage from a flat panel and some gear behind such a screen.
> 
> In my situation I would have a plasma panel and some hardware otherwise dark fabric. I have the UF sample and it is clearly semi transparent. I only have a small sample so it is difficult to test. My understanding is that UF retractable does not have black backing.
> 
> Any experience?


The retractable UF screens also have the secondary black backing layer, so don't worry about reflections from a panel behind the screen. Retracting over a flat panel is very common. You still won't want any light sources, however, such as LED lights, as they can show.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## clausdk

Ah wonderful. No problem then. It will be otherwise completely dark behind it and zero lightsources.


----------



## Tnedator

There still seems to be much debate (in other threads) about how visible the weave on the XD is compared to say the Falcon. Those of you that own an XD or have seen both, what do you think about a 130" wide 2.35 screen at 12.5' viewing distance? Any issue with seeing the weave? I'm afraid the new UH or the Enlightor would hurt too much with the .8 gain. 

So, that leaves me between the Falcon and XD, and from what I've read, the XD probably has a bit more gain and possibly a more neutral color.


----------



## ScottJ

Tnedator said:


> There still seems to be much debate (in other threads) about how visible the weave on the XD is compared to say the Falcon. Those of you that own an XD or have seen both, what do you think about a 130" wide 2.35 screen at 12.5' viewing distance? Any issue with seeing the weave? I'm afraid the new UH or the Enlightor would hurt too much with the .8 gain.


I sit about 13' from my XD and cannot see any weave.

You can get a small sample from Seymour if you'd like to try it yourself.


----------



## DavidK442

Tnedator said:


> There still seems to be much debate (in other threads) about how visible the weave on the XD is compared to say the Falcon. Those of you that own an XD or have seen both, what do you think about a 130" wide 2.35 screen at 12.5' viewing distance? Any issue with seeing the weave? I'm afraid the new UH or the Enlightor would hurt too much with the .8 gain.
> 
> So, that leaves me between the Falcon and XD, and from what I've read, the XD probably has a bit more gain and possibly a more neutral color.


The XD and the Falcon test very similar in gain - essentially no difference.
The XD tests more color accurate. (Looking at two samples side by side I can't see the difference but I'm not very sensitive to color shift.)
The XD is less restrictive to high frequency sounds (measured).
The Falcon has slightly less visible weave close up, but at 12.5 feet viewing distance they would appear equally smooth.


----------



## mundis

*Staple or grommet*

Hello All, 
Everything is almost done. Panasonic 8000ae mounted, Axiom speakers up, equipment rack built and got a great deal on the Pioneer SC 1523K. First theater so image looks great on the wall. I built the screen frame to accommodate a 140" 2.35 image. First row at 14 feet second at 19 feet. 

Question: can save a little cash stapling to the frame vs grommets anyone have any experience with stapling or wish they used grommets instead. 

Getting samples sent this week to decide between XD or UF. 

Thank you


----------



## 7channelfreak

At 14 ft and 140 inches...I'd really recommend the XD. The extra gain will be appreciated.


----------



## mundis

I'm definitely leaning towards the XD and for the money will probably get it with the grommets. Since I really don't have any past home theater experience to draw from I think the extra gain of the XD will look better to me vs the possible better black levels realized by using the UF with the Panasonic 8000ae.


----------



## blastermaster

For me, I will will always choose a bright, punchy picture over a dull one with great black levels. I have an XD screen with a projector that has only fair black levels and it still looks great to me. Your Panasonic will be better in terms of black levels. On a screen that large you will definitely appreciate the XD. Get the grommets and save yourself a world of headache. My 0.02


----------



## coolgeek

Al Toid said:


> Alright, one more question. I notice that Seymour now offer a curved frame. I will be ordering a 16x9 screen and using it only with the benq w1070 projector. I will not be using any other lenses on it. With this in mind, is the curved screen actually better for all applications? Or is this just for people with anamorphic lenses? I really want to do it right. I know the XD material is the way to go for sure! I am a little confused on if the curved screen will distort a normal picture or is the preferred way to go. Thanks guys!





Tnedator said:


> There still seems to be much debate (in other threads) about how visible the weave on the XD is compared to say the Falcon. Those of you that own an XD or have seen both, what do you think about a 130" wide 2.35 screen at 12.5' viewing distance? Any issue with seeing the weave? I'm afraid the new UH or the Enlightor would hurt too much with the .8 gain.
> 
> So, that leaves me between the Falcon and XD, and from what I've read, the XD probably has a bit more gain and possibly a more neutral color.





DavidK442 said:


> The XD and the Falcon test very similar in gain - essentially no difference.
> The XD tests more color accurate. (Looking at two samples side by side I can't see the difference but I'm not very sensitive to color shift.)
> The XD is less restrictive to high frequency sounds (measured).
> The Falcon has slightly less visible weave close up, but at 12.5 feet viewing distance they would appear equally smooth.


I have actually compared the XD vs Falcon vs EN4K.

You can see the comparisons here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-sc...e-xd-vs-falcon-vs-screen-excellence-en4k.html

In summary:

- XD is a bit brighter than the Falcon (I'll guess about 10%). For most scenes, you might not be able to notice it, but on brighter scenes, you can clearly see the brightness (click on the link above to view the photos).

- XD's weave is not visible at 12 feet. In fact, it disappears at 9-10 feet but you might still 'feel' something's there. So, if you're sitting 12 feet from the screen, XD is the way to go.


----------



## coolgeek

Al Toid said:


> Alright, one more question. I notice that Seymour now offer a curved frame. I will be ordering a 16x9 screen and using it only with the benq w1070 projector. I will not be using any other lenses on it. With this in mind, is the curved screen actually better for all applications? Or is this just for people with anamorphic lenses? I really want to do it right. I know the XD material is the way to go for sure! I am a little confused on if the curved screen will distort a normal picture or is the preferred way to go. Thanks guys!





Gary Lightfoot said:


> You usually only use a curved screen with an anamorphic lens to counter the pincushion when the lens is in place for 2.35 presentations. With a 16:9 screen and no lens, there's no need for a curved screen unless you like the look of the screen compared to a flat one. With a curved screen you will have to overscan the image a little to hide the barrel distortion.
> 
> Sometimes the curve can be useful for countering reflections onto light coloured walls, but I've never meaured or seen any measures that say how good that is in comparison.
> 
> Gary


I actually bought the curved 16:9 screen. I haven't installed it yet.

However, a few days back i was at an AV show and there were several 16:9 screens that are a bit curved and they weren't using an anamorphic lens. It looks great. Gives you an IMAX feel.


----------



## ellisr63

I purchased the XD AT screen and got it setup the other night. I made my own frame from T slot aluminum, and purchased the screen with the grommets... It was a breeze to attach the material to the screen by my self. I am very pleased with the picture and I can not see any problems at all with the screen. I would recommend it to anyone who wants a excellent screen!


----------



## Al Toid

coolgeek said:


> I actually bought the curved 16:9 screen. I haven't installed it yet.
> 
> However, a few days back i was at an AV show and there were several 16:9 screens that are a bit curved and they weren't using an anamorphic lens. It looks great. Gives you an IMAX feel.


That is awesome! I'd love to hear how it comes out. Pictures would be great as well!


----------



## nathan_h

Measurements suggest Falcon is less acoustically transparent than the XD material.

http://www.accucalhd.com/documents/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf



coolgeek said:


> I have actually compared the XD vs Falcon vs EN4K.
> 
> You can see the comparisons here:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-sc...e-xd-vs-falcon-vs-screen-excellence-en4k.html
> 
> In summary:
> 
> - XD is a bit brighter than the Falcon (I'll guess about 10%). For most scenes, you might not be able to notice it, but on brighter scenes, you can clearly see the brightness (click on the link above to view the photos).
> 
> - XD's weave is not visible at 12 feet. In fact, it disappears at 9-10 feet but you might still 'feel' something's there. So, if you're sitting 12 feet from the screen, XD is the way to go.


----------



## DavidK442

nathan_h said:


> Measurements suggest Falcon is less acoustically transparent than the XD material.
> 
> http://www.accucalhd.com/documents/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf


I have referenced this report but have been hesitant to post the link. The measured specs (gain & sound attenuation) are invaluable, but I don't agree with some of the more subjective conclusions regarding weave and color shift visibility.
A direct comparison of samples in addition to a review of the test results will determine the best screen for a particular installation.


----------



## nathan_h

DavidK442 said:


> I have referenced this report but have been hesitant to post the link. The measured specs (gain & sound attenuation) are invaluable, but I don't agree with some of the more subjective conclusions regarding weave and color shift visibility.
> A direct comparison of samples in addition to a review of the test results will determine the best screen for a particular installation.


Agreed. Samples and real world tests are very important.

The measurements in the accucal report are great in that they are all done to the same standards, so you can easily compare relative performance in terms of gain, acoustic properties, and color shift.

The subjective summaries are... just that, subjective. They are the opinions of someone who has seen hundreds of theaters and measures and calibrates for a profession. So while not unassailable, and one should definitely get samples to see what's what and what matters to "you", they are a decent starting point.


----------



## coolgeek

nathan_h said:


> Measurements suggest Falcon is less acoustically transparent than the XD material.
> 
> http://www.accucalhd.com/documents/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf


It says forbidden link. How do i view the report?


----------



## Tnedator

coolgeek said:


> It says forbidden link. How do i view the report?


Link is good. Must be something like a firewall or content filter on your end blocking it.


----------



## nathan_h

coolgeek said:


> It says forbidden link. How do i view the report?


Link is working fine, but your ISP, employer, or filter software may not like a direct link to a PDF.

Also accessible via:

http://www.homecinemaguru.com


----------



## coolgeek

nathan_h said:


> Link is working fine, but your ISP, employer, or filter software may not like a direct link to a PDF.
> 
> Also accessible via:
> 
> http://www.homecinemaguru.com


I can't access this site either. I am accessing it from my home computer so no firewall, etc... it's a server error:


-----------


403 - Forbidden Error
You are not allowed to access this address. 
If the error persists, please contact the website webmaster.
If you are the webmaster of this site please log in to Cpanel and check the Error Logs. You will find the exact reason for this error there.

Common reasons for this error are:

Incorrect file/directory permissions: Below 644.
In order files to be read by the webserver, their permissions have to be equal or above 644. You can update file permissions with a FTP client or through cPanel's File Manager.

Restrictive Apache directives inside .htaccess file.
There are two Apache directives which can cause this error - 'Deny from' and 'Options -Indexes'.


----------



## coolgeek

nathan_h said:


> Link is working fine, but your ISP, employer, or filter software may not like a direct link to a PDF.
> 
> Also accessible via:
> 
> http://www.homecinemaguru.com


Is it possible for you to PM me a copy of the pdf?


----------



## Tnedator

coolgeek said:


> Is it possible for you to PM me a copy of the pdf?


It's definitely on your end, because I can hit the site fine. If you PM me your email, I will download it and email it to you. It doesn't look like you can attach an attachment to a PM.


----------



## coolgeek

Nevermind... i used a proxy and it works. Basically i think they banned some countries from accessing their website which is strange and a little bit crazy... 

Looks like XD was rated best in class.

I am not sure how accurate the 'gain' is... according to the report, the XD is .94 and the falcon is 1.0 on axis. In my own viewing experience, it looks like the XD is brighter than the falcon by about 10% in bright scenes. Take a look at the pictures I posted in this link:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-sc...e-xd-vs-falcon-vs-screen-excellence-en4k.html


----------



## Tnedator

coolgeek said:


> Nevermind... i used a proxy and it works. Basically i think they banned some countries from accessing their website which is strange and a little bit crazy...
> 
> Looks like XD was rated best in class.


Unfortunately, it's a necessary evil at times, as a means to try and stop hacking attempts on a server. If a site primarily has US visitors, for instance, they sometimes block IP blocks for much of Europe and Asia and other hotbeds of hack attempts.


----------



## bronxkid

can anyone comment on the advantage of the premier vs precision frame? is the premier worth the extra $400


----------



## nathan_h

It's nicer but whether it's worth $400 to you, well, what else might you spend the $400 on? 

If your choice is go smaller and get a nicer frame or go larger with the cheaper frame -- within reason -- I'd say it's not THAT nice. Go large. 

If your choice is upgrade your DVD player to a Blu-ray player OR get the nicer frame and watch only DVD's, upgrade to a blu-ray player and get the cheaper frame! 

If your choice is, go out to a nice dinner this week with the wife, or get the nicer frame and skip this week's night out, well, maybe getting the nicer frame is not a big sacrifice, so you might as well live it up. It is a little nicer.


----------



## ben38

bronxkid said:


> can anyone comment on the advantage of the premier vs precision frame? is the premier worth the extra $400


 The Premier frame has heavy duty strength and is only 4 pieces. My upstairs neighbor has a Premier frame. It is a beautiful beast of a frame. 

The Precision frame is thinner and is six pieces. The precision frame can be shipped in a much smaller box. Never saw one personally, but Seymour makes quality frames.

I can tell you without hesitation that the Premier frame is definitely worth its cost. However, 400 dollars more is 400 dollars less in your pocket. Whether it's worth it or not is up to you.


----------



## chriscmore

To split the difference, we also do the Precision frame in continuous top/bottom build. The additional cost is for the freight-length box, but it can still be perfect for some.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## bronxkid

thanks, looks like xd with premier would be the way to go.


----------



## BrolicBeast

Hi All,

Does anyone have any pictures of a large, curved Seymour 2:35/2:37/2:40 screen? I'll be ordering a 144" wide screen soon, and my choices are Falcon or Seymour. I'm leaning very closely to ordering a curved configuration, which would rule out Falcon, but I'm not sure how to implement a curved screen on a flat wall. I'm thinking about building the screen wall to _continue _the curve from the edge of the screen to the side wall, so the wall and screen conform to the same curve angle. But, I'd really like to see some curved screens in use. If anybody can point me in the direction of some pictures, I'd be greatly appreciative!


----------



## coolgeek

BrolicBeast said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Does anyone have any pictures of a large, curved Seymour 2:35/2:37/2:40 screen? I'll be ordering a 144" wide screen soon, and my choices are Falcon or Seymour. I'm leaning very closely to ordering a curved configuration, which would rule out Falcon, but I'm not sure how to implement a curved screen on a flat wall. I'm thinking about building the screen wall to _continue _the curve from the edge of the screen to the side wall, so the wall and screen conform to the same curve angle. But, I'd really like to see some curved screens in use. If anybody can point me in the direction of some pictures, I'd be greatly appreciative!


My vote: Curved... 

And if height is not a problem then get a 144 inch 16:9.. that way, when you're watching 2:35, you still get your whole length, but when watching 16:9 like avatar, then you'll truly be like having an Imax screen.


----------



## chriscmore

BrolicBeast said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Does anyone have any pictures of a large, curved Seymour 2:35/2:37/2:40 screen? I'll be ordering a 144" wide screen soon, and my choices are Falcon or Seymour. I'm leaning very closely to ordering a curved configuration, which would rule out Falcon, but I'm not sure how to implement a curved screen on a flat wall. I'm thinking about building the screen wall to _continue _the curve from the edge of the screen to the side wall, so the wall and screen conform to the same curve angle. But, I'd really like to see some curved screens in use. If anybody can point me in the direction of some pictures, I'd be greatly appreciative!


The curved screens are designed to mount to a flat wall using a top adapter bracket and two bottom L-brackets for adjustability. The top bracket was recently redesigned so it's one piece of formed steel, 60" wide with bolt slots and hanging cleats.

If you want to mount it to a curved wall, then it would simply use the standard Hangman brackets which can take that radius just fine. Or, if you want to ensure that curvature X meets curvature Y perfectly, we can put threaded inserts every foot or so, so that you can simply bolt it to the curved wall. This can be done with invisible flat brackets or visible L-brackets.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## rlhaudio

I purchase an XD center stage screen 2 years ago. It's still in the box, hoping to finish the carpet and walls so I can setup the screen. Its a 2:37 C130 (curved) I cant find the dimensions anymore for actual height and width. I'll be using my Panasonic AE 8000 projector (still in the box too) Do I need to purchase anything else? Ie, anamorphic lens or mounting equipment for the screen? I was going to build a frame to mount the screen on.


----------



## dropzone7

chriscmore said:


> To split the difference, we also do the Precision frame in continuous top/bottom build. The additional cost is for the freight-length box, but it can still be perfect for some.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hey Chris, not sure when the change was made but I just noticed the new Precision frame which I believe was called the Economy frame before. I'm anxious to see the new photos with the velvet on the frame. I'm also curious if going with this more light absorbing material on the frame has eliminated the need for that small black border at the edges of the white screen material. I assume that only appears on the Precision screens and not the Premier. Maybe it was there to avoid reflection from that shiny black frame? The reason I ask is that the thin black strip there kind of bothers me and if it will be eliminated with the use of velvet over the frame now then the Precision/Economy screen looks more attractive to me than ever.


----------



## chriscmore

rlhaudio said:


> I purchase an XD center stage screen 2 years ago. It's still in the box, hoping to finish the carpet and walls so I can setup the screen. Its a 2:37 C130 (curved) I cant find the dimensions anymore for actual height and width. I'll be using my Panasonic AE 8000 projector (still in the box too) Do I need to purchase anything else? Ie, anamorphic lens or mounting equipment for the screen? I was going to build a frame to mount the screen on.


Everything you need should be in the box. If not, let me know and we'll send it. The C130 image is 130" x 54.8". The frame is 136.7"w x 61.5"h x 1.6"-6.9"d.

As for a lens, you can choose to use the excellent lens memory settings in the Panny or if you have the $$, a lens would be a nice accessory. AVS can consult with you on the lens stuff: focal length, recommended throw distance, pincushion (which of course the curved screen eliminates).

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

dropzone7 said:


> Hey Chris, not sure when the change was made but I just noticed the new Precision frame which I believe was called the Economy frame before. I'm anxious to see the new photos with the velvet on the frame. I'm also curious if going with this more light absorbing material on the frame has eliminated the need for that small black border at the edges of the white screen material. I assume that only appears on the Precision screens and not the Premier. Maybe it was there to avoid reflection from that shiny black frame? The reason I ask is that the thin black strip there kind of bothers me and if it will be eliminated with the use of velvet over the frame now then the Precision/Economy screen looks more attractive to me than ever.


That thin strip was velvet, so essentially the whole frame is velvety goodness now. It essentially looks like the top picture of the Premier frame, as its logo badge is shrunk. I do need new pictures however. Got CEDIA stuff biting my ankles currently.

Chris


----------



## BrolicBeast

chriscmore said:


> The curved screens are designed to mount to a flat wall using a top adapter bracket and two bottom L-brackets for adjustability. The top bracket was recently redesigned so it's one piece of formed steel, 60" wide with bolt slots and hanging cleats.
> 
> If you want to mount it to a curved wall, then it would simply use the standard Hangman brackets which can take that radius just fine. Or, if you want to ensure that curvature X meets curvature Y perfectly, we can put threaded inserts every foot or so, so that you can simply bolt it to the curved wall. This can be done with invisible flat brackets or visible L-brackets.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks for this info! I'll probably go with the standard top bracket and build the screen wall from either end of the screen itself. Any possibility of motorized masking for the curved XD screen? Or is that reserved for Enlightor 4K?


----------



## chriscmore

BrolicBeast said:


> Thanks for this info! I'll probably go with the standard top bracket and build the screen wall from either end of the screen itself. Any possibility of motorized masking for the curved XD screen? Or is that reserved for Enlightor 4K?


I can't foresee taking the Seymour AV line up that much. I enjoy the line being priced where average Joes like me can shop.

You could add curtain tracks up above the screen for that cinema look, and masking function to boot.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## nathan_h

Fellow owners: I've got the EN4K screen in the 2.37:1 configuration... and I'm finally ready for some simple clean masking when watching 16:9 stuff.

Curious to hear what others have done who have the same kind of frames.

The wife finds curtains to be too chintzy but I'll bet that has more to do with my handyman skills in past attempts.... so I'm not ruling anything out.

What are ya'all doing?


----------



## nathan_h

Fellow owners: I've got the EN4K screen in the 2.37:1 configuration... and I'm finally ready for some simple clean masking when watching 16:9 stuff.

Curious to hear what others have done who have the same kind of frames.

The wife finds curtains to be too chintzy but I'll bet that has more to do with my handyman skills in past attempts.... so I'm not ruling anything out.

What are ya'all doing?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Well, I used a cheap and simple corded curtain track and my other half made me some black velvet curtains that had a wooden dowel down the leading edge so that it had a nice and clean edge. Worked well and the track only cost me around $20 back then. The velvet would probably be a bit more depending on how much you needed. I only made enough to go to 16:9 so didn't need a great deal.

Some people use removable panels that are held on by magnets, friction fit or a hanger system that is part of the frame. There are many ways to do it depending on what suits you better. If you've AT screen then you need to take into account that the masking might need to be AT as well if it will cover the speakers.

Gary


----------



## nathan_h

Thanks for the ideas.

Yep, EN4k is acoustically transparent. 

I have some black velvet curtains, but cannot use them (in part the WAF, but even more important to me: acoustically blocking the Left and Right speakers!). 

I have some speaker grill cloth. I think that would be acceptable (best case) acoustically. I also have the left over black backing material that Seymour includes with the EN4K. I could canibalize that, too.

Magnets sound interesting. And possibly like I could hide the panels until the lights are dimmed, making their "room lights are up so the room has to look nice" impact very minimal....


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Some velvets pass the 'blow test' for checking for AT potential, so don't rule them out. Speaker grill cloth works well because the image isn't projected onto it and your attention is usually on the screen which is brighter so more visible. It just might look a bit different to any surrounding velvet like that on the frame, if thats going to be an issue.

Gary


----------



## nathan_h

Thanks. Yes, the blow test is good enough for, say, acoustic panels. But for speakers, I find grill cloth to be what I need. It will be black enough, too 

Now I am just need to get smart and clean about how to make it useable.


----------



## ellisr63

What would you use for masking a AT screen... Stretch velvet?


----------



## nathan_h

ellisr63 said:


> What would you use for masking a AT screen... Stretch velvet?


Black speaker grill cloth would be better. Less interference with sound.


----------



## brwsaw

All this talk of black AT material has me rethinking my plans for new acoustic treatments and their size.


----------



## Draden1

Has anyone seen the difference between the velvets of the premier and precision frames? The website states the precision uses Baritone velvet. I'm not sure how that looks while in use in a darkened home theater while compared to the Fidelio velvet.

The reason I ask is that I currently have a premier frame and am considering a larger screen but going with the precision. I'm also curious if the seam in the horizontal run on the precision is noticeable/distracting. If anyone has pics of the precision screen I'd appreciate it. Thanks!


----------



## chriscmore

Congrats to Andrew's Home Theater of the Month. He built the speakers himself too: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/1629961-ht-month-humble-hangout.html










Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Draden1 said:


> Has anyone seen the difference between the velvets of the premier and precision frames? The website states the precision uses Baritone velvet. I'm not sure how that looks while in use in a darkened home theater while compared to the Fidelio velvet.
> 
> The reason I ask is that I currently have a premier frame and am considering a larger screen but going with the precision. I'm also curious if the seam in the horizontal run on the precision is noticeable/distracting. If anyone has pics of the precision screen I'd appreciate it. Thanks!


You can't tell the difference unless they're next to each other and you can feel the slightly denser Fidelio pile. The reflectivity difference of 99.7% vs 99.5% isn't much; I don't think I could simply look at a screen and tell which material is which, but if you swapped them and focused on the difference perhaps. Jon can send you a sample to compare if you want.

Also keep in mind the Precision frame can be had unspliced if you're up for a little freight cost.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Draden1

chriscmore said:


> You can't tell the difference unless they're next to each other and you can feel the slightly denser Fidelio pile. The reflectivity difference of 99.7% vs 99.5% isn't much; I don't think I could simply look at a screen and tell which material is which, but if you swapped them and focused on the difference perhaps. Jon can send you a sample to compare if you want.
> 
> Also keep in mind the Precision frame can be had unspliced if you're up for a little freight cost.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks for the response, and yes I would like a sample of the precision velvet. PM'd


----------



## BrolicBeast

For a purpose I can't yet disclose, I'm looking for a rear-projection screen material that will show an image from any light-source projected from behind without reflecting light from the main screen. So the side of the material that faces the inside of the theater can' t be reflective (or, no more reflective than wood is), but the rear should function as a rear-projection screen, allowing any lit image to show through. Has anyone heard of Seymour doing custom projects like this? This is for another component of the theater besides the main screen.


----------



## chriscmore

dropzone7 said:


> Hey Chris, not sure when the change was made but I just noticed the new Precision frame which I believe was called the Economy frame before. I'm anxious to see the new photos with the velvet on the frame. I'm also curious if going with this more light absorbing material on the frame has eliminated the need for that small black border at the edges of the white screen material. I assume that only appears on the Precision screens and not the Premier. Maybe it was there to avoid reflection from that shiny black frame? The reason I ask is that the thin black strip there kind of bothers me and if it will be eliminated with the use of velvet over the frame now then the Precision/Economy screen looks more attractive to me than ever.


I updated the Precision frame pictures so that you can see it's all-velvety goodness now.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## TedO

Well, I just hung my Curved 150" screen last night. First impressions are WOW what a great screen. The Precision frame is the best, easy to put together, the corners match up perfectly and the velvet is as black and rich as anything I have ever seen. The XD screen itself looks great, I don't have the sound system hooked up yet so I can't comment on how well it passes the sound.

Buying this screen was one of the best choices I made in building my HT, worth every penny I paid for it.


As a note to the masking topic, I used the best black speaker cloth Parts Express sells to cover my screen wall. All I can say is that it looks gray compared to the velvet on the screen frame. I don't think you would be happy with the look if you used this for masking panels.


----------



## brwsaw

TedO said:


> I don't think you would be happy with the look if you used this for masking panels.


Picture please.

I've been considering many different products to finish up my screen surround/masking. I'd be curious to see the dark grey vs black.


----------



## cgott42

I have a Seymour Retractable CenterStage XD 16x9 screen. I have a switch hard wired to the control box (as shown below:







) - to let down/pull up the screen to the correct height. I'd like the option of having the screen come down part way (for 2.35 AR viewing). How do I do that (other than buying the R2D7 Serial Switch ). I'm fine with a physical switch (but I also have a harmony remote if that helps do it on the cheap).


thx


----------



## chriscmore

If you don't want to do an intermediate stop via RS-232 through the R2D7 module, then I'd recommend timed macros. Simply make a macro for fully retracted to the intermediate stop by timing a stop command, say 5.2 seconds after the screen down command is issued. Of course adjust to reality and you could make another macro for retracting from fully down up to the intermediate stop:

*Down to scope*
* Screen down
* Delay x.x seconds
* Screen stop

*Up to scope*
* Screen up
* Delay x.x seconds
* Screen stop

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## cgott42

chriscmore said:


> If you don't want to do an intermediate stop via RS-232 through the R2D7 module, then I'd recommend timed macros. Simply make a macro for fully retracted to the intermediate stop by timing a stop command, say 5.2 seconds after the screen down command is issued. Of course adjust to reality and you could make another macro for retracting from fully down up to the intermediate stop:
> 
> *Down to scope*
> * Screen down
> * Delay x.x seconds
> * Screen stop
> 
> *Up to scope*
> * Screen up
> * Delay x.x seconds
> * Screen stop
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


 Thanks Chris. In addition to the controller that I have (pictured above) what do I need to buy to enable my Harmony to control the screen?


----------



## chriscmore

cgott42 said:


> Thanks Chris. In addition to the controller that I have (pictured above) what do I need to buy to enable my Harmony to control the screen?


IR receiver eye, and either download the hex codes, go through the wizard (appliances/Electronic Solutions or ESI/RP60...) or get the IR remote from us which you can return when you're done with it.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## cgott42

chriscmore said:


> IR receiver eye, and either download the hex codes, go through the wizard (appliances/Electronic Solutions or ESI/RP60...) or get the IR remote from us which you can return when you're done with it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


 thanks , will do.


----------



## cgott42

Btw, probably worth mentioning in this thread, I found that a center stage XD swatch held over the edge border of the screen produces only a very slightly perceptible line, actually seems more like a bump, anyway, I'm ordering more material to produce a winglets to Velcro onto the end of my existing 16x9 screen to convert to 2.35AR when needed. not sure how it'll be with the full piece (and not just a swatch) and if it'll become annoying over time, but I figured it's cheap enough to give it a try and perhaps create a convertible AR AT screen!


----------



## TedO

brwsaw said:


> Picture please.
> 
> I've been considering many different products to finish up my screen surround/masking. I'd be curious to see the dark grey vs black.


brwsaw,

You can see in the picture the screen frame is much blacker then the speaker cloth from Parts Express.


----------



## pgwalsh

chriscmore said:


> IR receiver eye, and either download the hex codes, go through the wizard (appliances/Electronic Solutions or ESI/RP60...) or get the IR remote from us which you can return when you're done with it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Having the two sites confuses me a bit. I was looking on SeymourScreenExcllence site and then realized it wasn't on that site.


----------



## cgott42

chriscmore said:


> IR receiver eye, and either download the hex codes, go through the wizard (appliances/Electronic Solutions or ESI/RP60...) or get the IR remote from us which you can return when you're done with it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris - I know that you're busy with Cedia stuff - just wanted to know when you'll be available to cut/sew the screen "winglet" addition I'm ordering (see above).
thx


----------



## brwsaw

TedO said:


> brwsaw,
> 
> You can see in the picture the screen frame is much blacker then the speaker cloth from Parts Express.


Yep, not too dark.
I'm torn between leaving well enough alone and trying to etch out that last bit of image quality (I hope to gain) if I mask the screen.
I think tonight I'm going settle and max out the screen size (150" ish) and play a few games.


----------



## nathan_h

The frame is much darker than the speaker cloth but even more important, the speaker cloth is BLACK ENOUGH that when the projector is projecting a black bar/edge/emptiness, it looks WAY better than projecting that same darkness on a white screen.


----------



## clausdk

On the retractables with masking - does the masking also use the velvet borders? Both the vertical or horizontal masking.

How close are the masking to the screen?

Finalizing my screen can't decide with regards to masking.


----------



## ScottJ

clausdk said:


> On the retractables with masking - does the masking also use the velvet borders? Both the vertical or horizontal masking.
> 
> How close are the masking to the screen?
> 
> Finalizing my screen can't decide with regards to masking.


I have the Seymour retractable with vertical masking (full-width mask). The bottom edge of the mask has the same velvet as the edges of the screen. When down, it's perhaps 0.5-0.8" in front of the screen. I can't tell this from my seat 13' away. It looks really slick, and works really well.


----------



## clausdk

ScottJ said:


> I have the Seymour retractable with vertical masking (full-width mask). The bottom edge of the mask has the same velvet as the edges of the screen. When down, it's perhaps 0.5-0.8" in front of the screen. I can't tell this from my seat 13' away. It looks really slick, and works really well.


Ok thanks thats great. The mask will have similar border then.

Trying to decide ciw but mostly mask to scope then have the option for massive "IMAX" 16:9..


----------



## magicj1

clausdk said:


> Ok thanks thats great. The mask will have similar border then.
> 
> Trying to decide ciw but mostly mask to scope then have the option for massive "IMAX" 16:9..



Interesting...

I went with 16:9 vertical masking due to the fact most of the films I watch are 2.35:1. I felt I would loose the illusion of going 'small' 16:9 TV viewing to 'large' 2.35:1 cinematic experience. However I do like the idea of being able to adjust the scope to suit using a horizontal masking system.


----------



## clausdk

Yes...very much in doubt. Initially I wanted a scope ratio and then mask off the sides for 16:9 content....just having second thoughts!


----------



## magicj1

clausdk said:


> Yes...very much in doubt. Initially I wanted a scope ratio and then mask off the sides for 16:9 content....just having second thoughts!



It's good to have second thoughts.... My other concern was having a projector with enough Lumen's to fill a 130" wide 16:9 screen


----------



## clausdk

magicj1 said:


> It's good to have second thoughts.... My other concern was having a projector with enough Lumen's to fill a 130" wide 16:9 screen


 Haha yes.

I went down in size to the 120" wide from the 130" wide. With my throw and a deeper bafflewall thats the maximum size I can fit using most projectors.


----------



## nathan_h

magicj1 said:


> It's good to have second thoughts.... My other concern was having a projector with enough Lumen's to fill a 130" wide 16:9 screen


Takes just as many lumens with a 130" wide (not diag) 2.35:1 screen, when using the zoom method. When using a lens, it can take ALMOST as much, due to light loss in the lens.

The constant height section of AVS has some great measurement based discussions on this topic.


----------



## magicj1

nathan_h said:


> Takes just as many lumens with a 130" wide (not diag) 2.35:1 screen, when using the zoom method. When using a lens, it can take ALMOST as much, due to light loss in the lens.
> 
> The constant height section of AVS has some great measurement based discussions on this topic.



Well I never. Didn't realise this 'lens light loss' I stand corrected. Very interesting. Cheers


----------



## nathan_h

not trying to "correct you" so much as confirm you have your eyes wide open (ie, have all the data) when making the decision


----------



## dropzone7

TedO said:


> brwsaw,
> 
> You can see in the picture the screen frame is much blacker then the speaker cloth from Parts Express.


Thanks for this. I haven't covered my wall yet and I plan to use speaker grill cloth like that. I would be okay with how dark that is for a screen wall but as you said, it wouldn't be great for masking compared to the velvet.


----------



## cw5billwade

nathan_h said:


> The frame is much darker than the speaker cloth but even more important, the speaker cloth is BLACK ENOUGH that when the projector is projecting a black bar/edge/emptiness, it looks WAY better than projecting that same darkness on a white screen.


On a 2.35:1 screen when playing a 16x9 movie the PJ does notproject black bars left and right as the image 16x9 (1080p) is what is beingprojected. There is just an absence of light except spill over from reallybright screens. On a 16x9 screen when projecting 2.35:1 then the PJ isprojecting black bars top and bottom unless using an A-Lens. So it depends onscreen format. I found over time the bars both non projected and projected donot bother me in a light controlled room. I have a 2.0:1 screen so I get barsin all formats.


----------



## cw5billwade

magicj1 said:


> It's good to have second thoughts.... My other concern was having a projector with enough Lumen's to fill a 130" wide 16:9 screen





clausdk said:


> Haha yes.
> 
> I went down in size to the 120" wide from the 130" wide. With my throw and a deeper bafflewall thats the maximum size I can fit using most projectors.


I made My DIY Center Stage Screen constant image area 2.0:1 so over all it is 126"x65" that gives me
126"x52" 2.40:1 with 136" diag, 6 12" bars top and bottom
126"x54" 2.35:1 with 137" diag, 5 1/2" bars top and bottom
120"x65" 1.85:1 with 137" diag, (man this size make it like being there) 3" bars both sides
116"x65" 16x9 with 133" diag. 5" bars both sides
So in the way the best of both worlds If I would have done a 2.40:1 screen 126" wide my 16x9 size would have been 92"x52" with 106" diag. If I would have done 16X9 65" tall my 2.40:1 would have been 116"x48" 126" diag.

Agian in a totally dark room you do not see the bar area unless you are looking for it. Check my screen build thread


----------



## magicj1

cw5billwade said:


> I made My DIY Center Stage Screen constant image area 2.0:1 so over all it is 126"x65" that gives me
> 126"x52" 2.40:1 with 136" diag, 6 12" bars top and bottom
> 126"x54" 2.35:1 with 137" diag, 5 1/2" bars top and bottom
> 120"x65" 1.85:1 with 137" diag, (man this size make it like being there) 3" bars both sides
> 116"x65" 16x9 with 133" diag. 5" bars both sides
> So in the way the best of both worlds If I would have done a 2.40:1 screen 126" wide my 16x9 size would have been 92"x52" with 106" diag. If I would have done 16X9 65" tall my 2.40:1 would have been 116"x48" 126" diag.
> 
> Agian in a totally dark room you do not see the bar area unless you are looking for it. Check my screen build thread



Nice work.


----------



## cw5billwade

magicj1 said:


> Nice work.


thanks watching a 16x9 film especialy in 3D is like right there in your face. First row is 10'6" wife refuses to sit up there.


----------



## nathan_h

cw5billwade said:


> On a 2.35:1 screen when playing a 16x9 movie the PJ does notproject black bars left and right as the image 16x9 (1080p) is what is beingprojected. There is just an absence of light except spill over from reallybright screens. On a 16x9 screen when projecting 2.35:1 then the PJ isprojecting black bars top and bottom unless using an A-Lens. So it depends onscreen format. I found over time the bars both non projected and projected donot bother me in a light controlled room. I have a 2.0:1 screen so I get barsin all formats.


Glad that works for you.

In my all black bat cave with complete light control, on a 2.35:1 Seymour EN4K screen, with a JVC RS20, calibrated, we can easily see the sides (not just the light spill at the edge, but all of the screen at the sides, even where there is no projected black -- ie, just empty screen) when watching a 1.78:1 movie.

But some speaker grill cloth, and it disappears.

YMMV.

My point was that black grill cloth is *adequate* and that one does NOT need to make all the masking out of opaque velvet (which would be bad for AT screens). This is what the OP was asking about: Is velvet necessary for masking or will black grill cloth work. 

Perfectionists might trim the edge closest to the image with black velvet but in the YMMV camp, so far my impression is that this is overkill.


----------



## DavidK442

cw5billwade said:


> I made My DIY Center Stage Screen constant image area 2.0:1 so over all it is 126"x65" so the best of both worlds


Two thumbs up for constant area. Not sure why more people don't go this route, especially when you can buy diy material like Center Stage XD and build the frame with any dimensions you like, easily and for reasonable cost.
Mine is 112" X 55" from a distance of 10'. For me it is perfect for either 16X9 or scope format movies. You are correct, best of both worlds.


----------



## clausdk

cw5billwade said:


> I made My DIY Center Stage Screen constant image area 2.0:1 so over all it is 126"x65" that gives me
> 126"x52" 2.40:1 with 136" diag, 6 12" bars top and bottom
> 126"x54" 2.35:1 with 137" diag, 5 1/2" bars top and bottom
> 120"x65" 1.85:1 with 137" diag, (man this size make it like being there) 3" bars both sides
> 116"x65" 16x9 with 133" diag. 5" bars both sides
> So in the way the best of both worlds If I would have done a 2.40:1 screen 126" wide my 16x9 size would have been 92"x52" with 106" diag. If I would have done 16X9 65" tall my 2.40:1 would have been 116"x48" 126" diag.
> 
> Agian in a totally dark room you do not see the bar area unless you are looking for it. Check my screen build thread


Once we move to a new house in a few years I'll aim for a constant image area setup in a dedicated room. Right now with a retractable options are limited. I am leaning towards a 120" wide scope screen and accept movies like avatar and Avengers are "smallish" 16:9. My other idea was simply the same 120" wide screen but in 16:9 with horizontal masking down to scope and then opening it up for movies like the before mentioned. Its alot more expensive for those few movies though!-)


----------



## magicj1

clausdk said:


> Once we move to a new house in a few years I'll aim for a constant image area setup in a dedicated room. Right now with a retractable options are limited. I am leaning towards a 120" wide scope screen and accept movies like avatar and Avengers are "smallish" 16:9. My other idea was simply the same 120" wide screen but in 16:9 with horizontal masking down to scope and then opening it up for movies like the before mentioned. Its alot more expensive for those few movies though!-)


It's a tough decision. I love my electric screen, however I still find the cost hard to swallow 'all the extra's start to add up' when you see how much cheaper the DIY route is. 'The UK custom charges didn't help either'. 

Like you I hope to head down the dedicated room route in the not so distant future. I do wander how much I will get selling on...


----------



## clausdk

magicj1 said:


> It's a tough decision. I love my electric screen, however I still find the cost hard to swallow 'all the extra's start to add up' when you see how much cheaper the DIY route is. 'The UK custom charges didn't help either'.
> 
> Like you I hope to head down the dedicated room route in the not so distant future. I do wander how much I will get selling on...


Exactly. We wont move until 4 years I think so the comming retractable will be written off over those years I do not expect to get a lot for it used. 

To mask or not to


----------



## magicj1

clausdk said:


> Exactly. We wont move until 4 years I think so the comming retractable will be written off over those years I do not expect to get a lot for it used.
> 
> To mask or not to


The masking works really well................ I guess the cost needs to be swallowed from the AV war chest.


----------



## clausdk

magicj1 said:


> The masking works really well................ I guess the cost needs to be swallowed from the AV war chest.


Haha yes. Just reread a reply from ealier - is your screen 16:9 then masking down the entire height to scope? So one big horizontal mask.

I originally wanted the side masking.


----------



## magicj1

clausdk said:


> Haha yes. Just reread a reply from ealier - is your screen 16:9 then masking down the entire height to scope? So one big horizontal mask.
> 
> I originally wanted the side masking.


No, mine is 2.35:1 with 16:9 side masking. 

I once had a *non AT* 16:9 electric screen which I made an electric 'horizontal' masking system for. This worked well, however I didn't like going from a large 16:9 to a small 2.35:1 it kind of ruined the 'big' cinema effect for me.


----------



## clausdk

magicj1 said:


> No, mine is 2.35:1 with 16:9 side masking.
> 
> I once had a *non AT* 16:9 electric screen which I made an electric 'horizontal' masking system for. This worked well, however I didn't like going from a large 16:9 to a small 2.35:1 it kind of ruined the cinema effect for me.


Got it! I agree.

How is the effect like with masks comming down from above and not in from the sides?

I'm imaginening starting up in masked 16:9 for menus and mediacenter then the movie starts and the projectors zooms to scope and then the masks go up!


----------



## magicj1

clausdk said:


> Got it! I agree.
> 
> How is the effect like with masks comming down from above and not in from the sides?
> 
> I'm imaginening starting up in masked 16:9 for menus and mediacenter then the movie starts and the projectors zooms to scope and then the masks go up!


It worked well, but less appealing when going smaller for the movie. You just can't trick the brain the same!! 

Exactly. I use jRiver. Set off in 16:9, then when the movie fires up the masking goes up and the scope zooms out. 


Right got to dash, off to a wedding......................


----------



## clausdk

magicj1 said:


> It worked well, but less appealing when going smaller for the movie. You just can't trick the brain the same!!
> 
> Exactly. I use jRiver. Set off in 16:9, then when the movie fires up the masking goes up and the scope zooms out.
> 
> 
> Right got to dash, off to a wedding......................


Enjoy


----------



## Tnedator

DavidK442 said:


> Two thumbs up for constant area. Not sure why more people don't go this route, especially when you can buy diy material like Center Stage XD and build the frame with any dimensions you like, easily and for reasonable cost.
> Mine is 112" X 55" from a distance of 10'. For me it is perfect for either 16X9 or scope format movies. You are correct, best of both worlds.


I think the primary reasons is the challenge of making a two way masking system that both looks good and is easy to use. That's the biggest issue with constant area screens that I see.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I find CIA compromises scope movies, though not as much as CIW. If you have a scope screen that is the same height as your CIA screen, scope movies are even more immersive.

Gary


----------



## deromax

When they invented cinemascope, the reason was to have wider movies. Not having movie the same width but shorter. imho, a scope screen is the way to go. It is understood that 1.85:1 movies are meant to be shown on smaller screen than scope.

More high profile and blockbuster movie are shot in scope than flat ratio, save for a few 3D. Comedies, chicks movies and low budget one are often in 16:9, no reason to want them bigger, again, imho!


----------



## R Harkness

DavidK442 said:


> Two thumbs up for constant area. Not sure why more people don't go this route,


And since projectors (using zoom) allow you so much variation in image sizes, I'm sometimes amazed more people don't go even further to a Variable Image Size system. See links below my name.


----------



## Sonyad

Deromax, the links to the pictures in your thread are all broken.


----------



## deromax

Sonyad said:


> Deromax, the links to the pictures in your thread are all broken.


I know! The first paragraph on the first post explains why!


----------



## Sonyad

Oh, I missed that part. Anyway I found your pictures.


----------



## greg1292

chriscmore said:


> Here's an unaltered screenshot of the new Matinee Black material. I've been enjoying working on these new materials over the past couple years, even though they're not AT. In my world, every home theater should be a dedicated, darkened, wall full of audio/video perfection (btw, looking forward to David's open "theater" tomorrow!), but also need to realize that not everyone can have true batcaves. There are ceilings that the boss won't allow to be painted, and windows that need stay open.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris is this screen free of artifacs,shimmering,noise in the image? And what is the lead time once the screen is ordered?

Thank Greg


----------



## mike_orst

Any pictures of how the curved frames mounting brackets will work. I'm in the process of building a false wall which my screen will be attached to and want to make sure I won't have any issues when I order my screen in a couple weeks. (I've seen the fixed frame instructions, but doesn't talk about the curved options - http://seymourav.com/articles/CenterStageFixedFrameInstructions.pdf, or maybe its the same french-cleat option)

Mike


----------



## brwsaw

Chris, is the XD material discontinued?
What was the rated attenuation? I've lost my notes.


----------



## jeffleonard

mike_orst said:


> Any pictures of how the curved frames mounting brackets will work. I'm in the process of building a false wall which my screen will be attached to and want to make sure I won't have any issues when I order my screen in a couple weeks. (I've seen the fixed frame instructions, but doesn't talk about the curved options - http://seymourav.com/articles/CenterStageFixedFrameInstructions.pdf, or maybe its the same french-cleat option)
> 
> Mike


I have a 150" curved 2.35 Seymour...the mounting cleat is a just a curved french cleat. Center cleat is about 24-30 inches...then there are 2 L brackets that attached at the bottom outside edges of the frame to keep screen locked in place. Super easy to install...sorry for no pics.


----------



## mike_orst

jeffleonard said:


> I have a 150" curved 2.35 Seymour...the mounting cleat is a just a curved french cleat. Center cleat is about 24-30 inches...then there are 2 L brackets that attached at the bottom outside edges of the frame to keep screen locked in place. Super easy to install...sorry for no pics.


So is the wall you mounted the frame to curved? Or does the back of french cleat go against a flat wall, but the actual cleat comes out of the wall and is curved to align with the screen frame? If you happen to have a picture maybe that would help me...

Mike


----------



## chriscmore

brwsaw said:


> Chris, is the XD material discontinued?
> What was the rated attenuation? I've lost my notes.


No, the XD is still all over the site. The attenuation averages -1.4dB. Additional information is on the screens page: http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

mike_orst said:


> So is the wall you mounted the frame to curved? Or does the back of french cleat go against a flat wall, but the actual cleat comes out of the wall and is curved to align with the screen frame? If you happen to have a picture maybe that would help me...
> 
> Mike


You can do either. If you curve your wall or mounting surface to a 40' radius, then you can simply mount it to that by flexing the hanging brackets (smaller ones are recommended and they can be trimmed). If you mount it on a flat wall, it comes with a welded steel wall adapter bracket for the top center ~50" and two, adjustable L-brackets for the bottom corners.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## brwsaw

chriscmore said:


> No, the XD is still all over the site. The attenuation averages -1.4dB. Additional information is on the screens page: http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris



Thanks, I must be blind (looking in the wrong spot).


----------



## jeffleonard

mike_orst said:


> So is the wall you mounted the frame to curved? Or does the back of french cleat go against a flat wall, but the actual cleat comes out of the wall and is curved to align with the screen frame? If you happen to have a picture maybe that would help me...
> 
> Mike


The wall I mounted to is flat. The cleat is curved, the steel mounting strip mounts to a flat or curved wall. You don't need to do any special prep to your wall for a curved screen. I was planning for a normal "flat" screen during my build and decided to go with curved at the last minute.

No picture...I don't want to take the screen down. Trust me, you'll be fine.


----------



## ripclawsa

I apologise in advance if this isn't the right place to post these questions. Here goes:


What's the price difference between SeymourAV screens and the Seymour Screen Excellence products?
I see that one can order SeymourAV screens from their website. If I wanted a Seymour Screen Excellence screen, how do I order one?
The Seymour Screen Excellence Absolute range looks excellent. Can someone please point me in the direction of pricing?

Thanks!


----------



## ripclawsa

I apologise in advance if this isn't the right place to post these questions. Here goes:


What's the price difference between SeymourAV screens and the Seymour Screen Excellence products?
I see that one can order SeymourAV screens from their website. If I wanted a Seymour Screen Excellence screen, how do I order one?
The Seymour Screen Excellence Absolute range looks excellent. Can someone please point me in the direction of pricing?

Thanks!


----------



## cgott42

I'm looking to purchase a used 2.35 seymourav AT center stage screen, I sake the seller if it was the center stage XD and he said it's the original. was there an earlier version? How doe it differ?
Thx


----------



## DavidK442

cgott42 said:


> I'm looking to purchase a used 2.35 seymourav AT center stage screen, I sake the seller if it was the center stage XD and he said it's the original. was there an earlier version? How doe it differ?
> Thx


Yes, the earlier version was just called "Center Stage". The material had a courser weave and I believe less gain.
Center Stage XD is the updated fabric, though it has been around for several years itself (5 or 6??)
I would pass on the used screen.


----------



## cgott42

DavidK442 said:


> Yes, the earlier version was just called "Center Stage". The material had a courser weave and I believe less gain.
> Center Stage XD is the updated fabric, though it has been around for several years itself (5 or 6??)
> I would pass on the used screen.


thanks.I just confirmed that it is in fact the older CenterStage and not the XD (shame I can't see them in person to see the difference)


----------



## dropzone7

I don't think there would be anything wrong with a used screen if the price is right and it's in good shape. What size is it?


----------



## cgott42

great shape, 127" - but the difference in material worries me as per the previous poster. I've confirmed that it is in fact the older Centerstage and not the XD


----------



## dropzone7

cgott42 said:


> great shape, 127" - but the difference in material worries me as per the previous poster. I've confirmed that it is in fact the older Centerstage and not the XD


Is that 127" wide? Is it a Seymour frame or DIY? I would wait for Chris to chime in about pros and cons of the older material which will probably be largely dependent on your equipment and setup.


----------



## cgott42

dropzone7 said:


> Is that 127" wide? Is it a Seymour frame or DIY? I would wait for Chris to chime in about pros and cons of the older material which will probably be largely dependent on your equipment and setup.


My mistake - it's 121.5" wide (about 132" diag.)


----------



## DavidK442

cgott42 said:


> thanks.I just confirmed that it is in fact the older CenterStage and not the XD (shame I can't see them in person to see the difference)


Bang out a wooden frame, buy 3 or 4 yards of Center Stage XD fabric and some black velvet.
A top notch custom sized screen likely cheaper than the used one you are looking at.
Done deal.


----------



## cgott42

DavidK442 said:


> Bang out a wooden frame, buy 3 or 4 yards of Center Stage XD fabric and some black velvet.
> A top notch custom sized screen likely cheaper than the used one you are looking at.
> Done deal.


Does it need black AT material to be behind it to prevent light from going through to the wall (screen will be hanging about 2 feet in front of wall)


----------



## DavidK442

cgott42 said:


> Does it need black AT material to be behind it to prevent light from going through to the wall (screen will be hanging about 2 feet in front of wall)


Unless the wall and everything else behind the screen is a dark color, I would say yes.


----------



## cw5billwade

DavidK442 said:


> Bang out a wooden frame, buy 3 or 4 yards of Center Stage XD fabric and some black velvet.
> A top notch custom sized screen likely cheaper than the used one you are looking at.
> Done deal.


That is what I did saved a ton 



cgott42 said:


> Does it need black AT material to be behind it to prevent light from going through to the wall (screen will be hanging about 2 feet in front of wall)


I just used black fabric on my wall and it is fine.


----------



## cgott42

Does SeymourAV sell the Excellence material for DIY? if so, how much?


----------



## Mike Garrett

ripclawsa said:


> I apologise in advance if this isn't the right place to post these questions. Here goes:
> 
> 
> What's the price difference between SeymourAV screens and the Seymour Screen Excellence products?
> I see that one can order SeymourAV screens from their website. If I wanted a Seymour Screen Excellence screen, how do I order one?
> The Seymour Screen Excellence Absolute range looks excellent. Can someone please point me in the direction of pricing?
> 
> Thanks!


Seymour AV is sold direct and through dealers. Screen Excellence is only sold through dealers. AV Science is a Seymour AV and Screen Excellence dealer. If you would like pricing, please give us a call.


----------



## Mike Garrett

cgott42 said:


> Does SeymourAV sell the Excellence material for DIY? if so, how much?


This material is not sold direct DIY, but there is a Craftsman Installer kit that you can buy. Available through dealer. Call us for details or pricing.


----------



## clausdk

Revisited my XD and UF samples last night. Everything else is settled, size etc ... Just can't decide between the two screen choices.

XD is brighter which lends to more percieved contrast? It is really nice but on highlights with larger areas of the same color I can sense the weave. It doesn't dissapear completely to my eyes even at 14'. I notice some light texture.

UF is very smooth and dissapears leaving just the picture. Less bright and seemingly less sharp compared directly to the XD? 

Is the brightness difference fooling my eyes in regards to percieved contrast or is the XD sharper by nature?

So it seems I have to decide between a less sharp/bright image that won't show texture or a brighter/sharper with the occasional visible texture...

I remodelled my frontwall with an in wall center so I really need a new screen!


----------



## DavidK442

clausdk said:


> Revisited my XD and UF samples last night. Everything else is settled, size etc ... Just can't decide between the two screen choices.
> 
> XD is brighter which lends to more perceived contrast? It is really nice but on highlights with larger areas of the same color I can sense the weave. It doesn't disappear completely to my eyes even at 14'. I notice some light texture.
> 
> UF is very smooth and disappears leaving just the picture. Less bright and seemingly less sharp compared directly to the XD?
> 
> So it seems I have to decide between a less sharp/bright image that won't show texture or a brighter/sharper with the occasional visible texture...


Yes, the AT quandary. To see the XD weave at 14' you must have extremely good vision. The only advice I can give is that when viewed on their own, any short comings of the UF material will likely become a non-issue, or largely overcome by a bright projector, while the texture of the XD will become more apparent on a full sized surface overtime.

I am still hopeful that Chris will develop an XD2 in the near future with similar gain and reduced texture. Would even be willing to give up another couple db's in the high frequencies. Unfortunately I think he commented once that the thread diameter was already as small as possible given the coating process.


----------



## coolgeek

I tested the XD on the Sony 500ES 4K projector.. the weave disappears for me from as near as 6-8 feet.


----------



## clausdk

DavidK442 said:


> Yes, the AT quandary. To see the XD weave at 14' you must have extremely good vision. The only advice I can give is that when viewed on their own, any short comings of the UF material will likely become a non-issue, or largely overcome by a bright projector, while the texture of the XD will become more apparent on a full sized surface overtime.
> 
> I am still hopeful that Chris will develop an XD2 in the near future with similar gain and reduced texture. Would even be willing to give up another couple db's in the high frequencies. Unfortunately I think he commented once that the thread diameter was already as small as possible given the coating process.


Believe me I wish I didnt notice the weave/texture because then the XD is really a no brainer.
At 14' it isn't exactly easy to spot but once your eye catches it you're in trouble or atleast I am.

I have corrected "perfect" vision. I work as a pilot actually, not that perfect eyesight is required for that, but it's certainly an advantage.

So more light on the UF and it will appear just as sharp?


----------



## clausdk

coolgeek said:


> I tested the XD on the Sony 500ES 4K projector.. the weave disappears for me from as near as 6-8 feet.


If that was the case for me I would pick the XD no doubt.


----------



## DavidK442

clausdk said:


> So more light on the UF and it will appear just as sharp?


A brighter image will appear to have more detail yes, however the tendency of the UF material's strands to "glow" slightly may also play a part, especially if you have your nose to the screen, comparing samples. It is most obvious when looking up close at fine print, but back at a normal seating distance I can't really tell if this affect has any impact on detail.


----------



## Mike Garrett

clausdk said:


> Revisited my XD and UF samples last night. Everything else is settled, size etc ... Just can't decide between the two screen choices.
> 
> XD is brighter which lends to more percieved contrast? It is really nice but on highlights with larger areas of the same color I can sense the weave. It doesn't dissapear completely to my eyes even at 14'. I notice some light texture.
> 
> UF is very smooth and dissapears leaving just the picture. Less bright and seemingly less sharp compared directly to the XD?
> 
> Is the brightness difference fooling my eyes in regards to percieved contrast or is the XD sharper by nature?
> 
> So it seems I have to decide between a less sharp/bright image that won't show texture or a brighter/sharper with the occasional visible texture...
> 
> I remodelled my frontwall with an in wall center so I really need a new screen!


When doing side by side, your eyes will nearly always pick the brighter image. That is why TV show rooms use dynamic lamp setting on their TV's. Technically the UF should provide a sharper image, in theory, due to the smoother weave.


----------



## nathan_h

clausdk said:


> Believe me I wish I didnt notice the weave/texture because then the XD is really a no brainer.
> At 14' it isn't exactly easy to spot but once your eye catches it you're in trouble or atleast I am.
> 
> I have corrected "perfect" vision. I work as a pilot actually, not that perfect eyesight is required for that, but it's certainly an advantage.
> 
> So more light on the UF and it will appear just as sharp?


Just like when comparing speakers, you need to match the volume (sound output level as measured in the room), when comparing screen samples, you should do the same -- with brightness.

[Yes, if you are AT THE LIMIT of the projector's capabilities, then you are stuck with fewer options. I'm assuming you have some wiggle room.]

Use the adjustable iris in your projector OR if you don't have one, use low lamp versus high lamp mode, when two samples are obviously different in gain.

The latter won't be precise but will be better than not adjusting.

Here is a FREE light meter than is good enough for "level matching" from Whitegoods:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lightmeter-by-whitegoods/id501638921?mt=8


----------



## clausdk

Thanks for the feedback on the XD vs UF. After a lot of considerations I've decided to go with the UF. In the end even the rare screen artifact was, for me, to heavy a price and the brightness loss of the UF can be overcome. The screen is being installed in a multi purpose room and even with very good light control the slightly lower black floor on the UF is welcome.

Now I just have to wait for it to be delivered. It's going to be a tough wait but I am upgrading some other aspects of my living room theater meanwhile!


----------



## Wilber

i have compared with 4 materials, Falcon Screen AT, XD, UF and 4K.

at my seating distance, i can see weave holes of XD so XD is out. FS vs UF, FS is brighter but contrast is UF.
i'm looking forward to receive UF fabric for my screen.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Wilber said:


> i have compared with 4 materials, Falcon Screen AT, XD, UF and 4K.
> 
> at my seating distance, i can see weave holes of XD so XD is out. FS vs UF, FS is brighter but contrast is UF.
> i'm looking forward to receive UF fabric for my screen.



Wilbur,

What is your seating distance?

...Glenn


----------



## Wilber

Glenn Baumann said:


> Wilbur,
> 
> What is your seating distance?
> 
> ...Glenn


Hi Glenn,

about 3.3m


----------



## Reference_head

I bought a screen about 1 year ago and love this screen. I know back then they did not sell masking. Has that changed at all Chris or will it become available?


----------



## nathan_h

http://seymourav.com/masking.asp


----------



## Reference_head

It's an electric screen. But it's always down unless I need to work on something behind it. So looking for panels I could toss up and pull down. Manually is fine.


----------



## Husker41082

Outside of the frame needing to be put together what are the main differences between the Premier and Precision frames. At this point leaning towards a fixed 16:9 screen with masking for scope which looking at the website I get the impression is only available with the Premier frame but I could be wrong.

Thanks,


----------



## cgott42

Can someone explain when the 15 degree tilt is necessary (for DIY SeymourAV screens) ? i.e. what "problem" does the non titled screen have? and at what size, seating distance is the problem barely noticeable (if at all)?

thx


----------



## nathan_h

cgott42 said:


> Can someone explain when the 15 degree tilt is necessary (for DIY SeymourAV screens) ? i.e. what "problem" does the non titled screen have? and at what size, seating distance is the problem barely noticeable (if at all)?
> 
> thx


moire

at many sizes and differences

get the tilt to be safe


----------



## cgott42

thx


----------



## chriscmore

Husker41082 said:


> Outside of the frame needing to be put together what are the main differences between the Premier and Precision frames. At this point leaning towards a fixed 16:9 screen with masking for scope which looking at the website I get the impression is only available with the Premier frame but I could be wrong.
> 
> Thanks,


At the bottom of the fixed frames page here http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp there is a summary between the two frames. The masking panels are an option for the Premier frame.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## cgott42

Chris:
I'm putting together a DIY screen w/ the XD material - and am attaching velcro to the back of the XD material , and them will be sewing black velvet to the front - what type of thread to you suggest to use to sew the velcro to the XD? Also any other suggestions (so I don't learn things the hard way)?
thx


----------



## chriscmore

cgott42 said:


> Chris:
> I'm putting together a DIY screen w/ the XD material - and am attaching velcro to the back of the XD material , and them will be sewing black velvet to the front - what type of thread to you suggest to use to sew the velcro to the XD? Also any other suggestions (so I don't learn things the hard way)?
> thx


The type of thread is less important than how you do it. Keep a long stitch, as loose as possible, and possibly intermittent so you don't scrunch things up.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## cgott42

chriscmore said:


> The type of thread is less important than how you do it. Keep a long stitch, as loose as possible, and possibly intermittent so you don't scrunch things up.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


 thanks can I do it by machine, or do you recommend by hand?


----------



## hendry98

XD owners, 

Would you able to see the XD weave at 15ft? or never?

I am planning to get the XD material, and want to know what is the minimum distance to be in the safe side,

I can however move to 16ft if this is the safest distance, and this would give me another good reason to get a larger screen 


In addition, do you think Epson 5030 would be a good option for the XD 140 or 145" Diagonal 16:9 with a throw ratio of 18-19ft ? note that i will have light controlled HT, grey walls and dark ceiling;

Or should i consider JVC X500R or X55R or even Sony?


I am only interested in 2D content, and will never use the shift/memory feature as i will have 16:9 screen with manual masking panels.


Regards,


----------



## bighvy76

It's hard for me to see any weave at 7 feet back on a 120" screen


----------



## brwsaw

Is it possible those seeing the weave are actually seeing light from behind the screen?


----------



## Mike Garrett

brwsaw said:


> Is it possible those seeing the weave are actually seeing light from behind the screen?


At less than 11' I can see the weave. That is what I use as my recommendation point. If closer than 11' consider UF or EN4K.


----------



## cw5billwade

at 10'6" front row I can see it in certain sceens if I am looking for it. If I am enjoying the movie not so much. My second row at 16' I can not see it at all.


----------



## coolgeek

I have a question about the premier frame. I have a 10 foot wide 16:9 frame and i was wondering if it's possible to screw a few door hinges at one of the sides so that i can open the screen like a door. Would the aluminium frame be strong enough for this application? It's a little difficult to use the french cleat if one were to always need to access into the back of the screen.


----------



## chriscmore

coolgeek said:


> I have a question about the premier frame. I have a 10 foot wide 16:9 frame and i was wondering if it's possible to screw a few door hinges at one of the sides so that i can open the screen like a door. Would the aluminium frame be strong enough for this application? It's a little difficult to use the french cleat if one were to always need to access into the back of the screen.


We've done that. The frame is plenty strong but because it's so easy to do, we attach a stainless steel cable to hold the diagonal in tension. Let us know if you need help.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## coolgeek

chriscmore said:


> We've done that. The frame is plenty strong but because it's so easy to do, we attach a stainless steel cable to hold the diagonal in tension. Let us know if you need help.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris,

Do you have a simple drawing on how you did it... for instance, where do you pull the cable from to where (which point). Also, how many hinges did you use? And how you attached them. Thanks.


----------



## coolgeek

Hi,

Is Chris on holiday or out somewhere? I was PMing him halfway with an order to get my screen set up, but the conversation sort of ended.


----------



## coolgeek

Hi,

Is Chris on holiday or out somewhere? I was PMing him halfway with an order to get my screen set up, but the conversation sort of ended.


----------



## RapalloAV

coolgeek said:


> Hi,
> 
> Is Chris on holiday or out somewhere? I was PMing him halfway with an order to get my screen set up, but the conversation sort of ended.


Ive been trying to get Chris and Jon for days to buy some product but cant get anyone to reply, they must be closed up for holidays or something....


----------



## chriscmore

We will respond to your emails this morning. Occasionally Jon and I have to wear the shop apron instead, as folks need things to be made.

Chris


----------



## charlys

You could also build a frame and build, "feet" for it and have the whole thing sit on the floor.


----------



## charlys

I missed that part. Anyway I found your pictures.


----------



## charlys

Any pictures of how the curved frames mounting brackets will work.


----------



## charlys

I was PMing him halfway with an order to get my screen set up.


----------



## charlys

Does SeymourAV sell the Excellence material for DIY?


----------



## hendry98

RapalloAV said:


> Ive been trying to get Chris and Jon for days to buy some product but cant get anyone to reply, they must be closed up for holidays or something....


Yeah me too

i have been trying to get Chris and Jon for the past few days but no luck


----------



## chriscmore

hendry98 said:


> Yeah me too
> 
> i have been trying to get Chris and Jon for the past few days but no luck


What is your email address and I'll search for your message?

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Never mind; I found your message. Will respond to now.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## hendry98

chriscmore said:


> Never mind; I found your message. Will respond to now.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris for your great support, 

Cannot wait to get my 150" Center Stage XD Screen 

Regards,


----------



## Mike Garrett

charlys said:


> Does SeymourAV sell the Excellence material for DIY?


You have to go through a dealer for Screen Excellence. There is a kit that you can buy. It s called Craftsman Installer kit. If yu would like more information, give us a call.


----------



## chriscmore

Sorry the sites have been down. Microsoft updates are apparently Microsofty enough that they crash, often and with enough abandon to remind us all of such well-executed product as Windows ME. I'll update my sig to include the main phone number, as we're very much still here. 

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Milt99

Looking at updating my projector and screen this spring.
Currently have the Seymour XD mounted on a Carada frame but since I going to go bigger, will get the Seymour screen and frame.
I won't miss having to tweak the screen to get a flat surface!

Question for Chris:
Currently my screen wall is covered with the ubiquitous black GOM-701(I think that's the number).
Would there be an acoustic and\or "blackness" advantage to going with your black backing material for the wall over the GOM?
Believe me, I'm not looking forward to redoing the wall but since the framing will have to be modified for the larger frame if I'm going to recover anyway I might as well try to make it better.
Of course one more question, since the screen frame will be mounted securely in the screen wall, what, if any, advantage does the Premier offer over Precision?
Masking panel compatibility?
Thanks.


----------



## chriscmore

GOM-701 is decent as a light absorber (97.0%), due to its fuzzy surface. It's not very acoustically transparent (-3 dBA), also due to its fuzzy surface. The Millibel black backing is 10x more air permeable (-0.3dBA), but isn't as much of a light sink (85.4%). The best combination of light absorbency and air permeability is the premium speaker grill material we sell. We use that on the S-SE motorized masking products. Whether or not it's worth recovering your screen wall is debatable. I actually advocate a lighter color screen wall, as it's the one surface in the room that can't contaminate your image. That's the wall to paint as obnoxiously as you want.

In a black, aperture mount, the frame choices would obviously be more similar since the border width difference won't be as valuable. You may even be ok with the Precision frame's standard spliced top/bottom, as you can secure the frame wherever you want. It can't accommodate panels, but there are even DIY or curtain solutions for that. Or, the Premier is everything and a bag of nuts.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

GOM-701 is decent as a light absorber (97.0%), due to its fuzzy surface. It's not very acoustically transparent (-3 dBA), also due to its fuzzy surface. The Millibel black backing is 10x more air permeable (-0.3dBA), but isn't as much of a light sink (85.4%). The best combination of light absorbency and air permeability is the premium speaker grill material we sell. We use that on the S-SE motorized masking products. Whether or not it's worth recovering your screen wall is debatable. I actually advocate a lighter color screen wall, as it's the one surface in the room that can't contaminate your image. That's the wall to paint as obnoxiously as you want.

In a black, aperture mount, the frame choices would obviously be more similar since the border width difference won't be as valuable. You may even be ok with the Precision frame's standard spliced top/bottom, as you can secure the frame wherever you want. It can't accommodate panels, but there are even DIY or curtain solutions for that. Or, the Premier is everything and a bag of nuts.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Larry M

Anyone interested in 2.40 constant width masking panels for a 120" screen? clearing space and $$$ for a basement bathroom

I bought it with my screen from Chris and never used them. Still in the box brand new. I believe they sell for over $500. 

Willing to let them go for $400 shipped

This is the screen I purchased
http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/fixedframes.asp

This is Chris' photo 









Also have A few panels of OC703 if anyone is interested


----------



## cnebrask

Chris,

I received the XD and UF samples. Just wanted to say thanks for the quick shipping. I'm looking forward to testing these out!

Thanks,
Chris


----------



## Scott B

cnebrask said:


> Chris,
> 
> I received the XD and UF samples. Just wanted to say thanks for the quick shipping. I'm looking forward to testing these out!
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris


Looking forward to reading about your comparison of these two materials.


----------



## clausdk

Does anyone what to write in the harmony setup to get seymour screens?

No options pop up when I write seymour.

EDIT: I can enter Somfy and there are a ton of different products. Which model is it I wonder?


----------



## cnebrask

I will certainly post a review when i get a free moment. I currently have a high contrast grey screen from Dragonfly so that's what I'll be comparing it to. My theater is a large mixed media room. It's light controlled but we watch TV and Sporting events so part of my testing we be how the Seymour material handles a small amount of ambient light coming from the back of the room.





Scott B said:


> Looking forward to reading about your comparison of these two materials.


----------



## Kingcobra777

Is Seymour still in business? I have sent two emails and no response whatsoever about getting some Centerstage material. Their website is down as well. Should I be concerned? 

M


----------



## chriscmore

Kingcobra777 said:


> Is Seymour still in business? I have sent two emails and no response whatsoever about getting some Centerstage material. Their website is down as well. Should I be concerned?
> 
> M


No, we're here and busy. Microsoft is Microsofting the sites, which we're trying to fix. Let me know your email address and Jon and I can search yours out to reply to.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## jrm21

Chris,

My screen is installed and I love it.

One small thing... I see some waves (pic attached). The instructions show how to correct this by tightening the turnbuckle. I tried this but am not sure I am doing it correctly. It seemed to be turning, but also seemed to have no effect.

I don't want to break anything or create a problem. Honestly, those waves (which look worse in the photo) do not seem to affect the picture when watching a movie. But every time I see this picture I think "I really need to do something about that."

Realizing that the instructions don't seem to explain the fix in a way that I can wrap my head around, can you offer me any tips or advice for working with those turnbuckles?


----------



## chriscmore

Joe -

First, jiggle the vertical turnbuckles to make sure they are not snagged or twisted. Second, tighten the bottom horizontal turnbuckles until the [\ /] turns in to a [/ \] pattern and then back off a touch. I'd guess a 1/2 turn each would be enough. If any remaining [= =] results, then loosening the vertical turnbuckles maybe a 1/2 turn will get you there.

You can email Jon or I pics for further tweaking as needed.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## jrm21

chriscmore said:


> Joe -
> 
> First, jiggle the vertical turnbuckles to make sure they are not snagged or twisted. Second, tighten the bottom horizontal turnbuckles until the [\ /] turns in to a [/ \] pattern and then back off a touch. I'd guess a 1/2 turn each would be enough. If any remaining [= =] results, then loosening the vertical turnbuckles maybe a 1/2 turn will get you there.
> 
> You can email Jon or I pics for further tweaking as needed.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks for the info. I am pretty sure the verticals are not snagged, but will double check to be sure. 

When turning to tighten/looosen...

The piece is like a long threaded bolt. The turnbuckle is like an elongated nut over that bolt. All I need to do it rotate the "nut"... no need to hold the bolt or any other piece to "anchor" it while turning. Am I understanding correctly? I tried turning it once, but didn't think I was doing it right. Guess I am just very uptight about messing with the screen. It is very well built, but for some reason I treat it like it is made of glass.


----------



## cnebrask

I finally had a chance to do some brief testing of the XD and UF screen material. Again thanks to Seymour for great customer service.

Some background - My room is a large basement mixed media room that is light controlled. It's still under construction but my intentions are to watch a combination of movies and Sporting events. I am plan on having a minimal amount of ambient light during sporting events if I am entertaining a larger group of people. I want to relocate at least the center channel hence the dive into Acoustically transparent material. 

My current screen is a DragonFly High Contrast Grey 110"
Projector is Sony VPL-HW40ES - minimal hours, running low lamp mode.

I didn't use any special gadgets or tools for testing my my projector has been calibrated using an x-rite colorimeter. I'm really looking for how ambient light is handled, brightness, blacks and highlights, and color accuracy. 

First, the weave - My front row starts at 10' with my head being about 12' from the screen. I honestly couldn't see the weave of either material unless i was 8' or closer. At 10' I couldn't see any weave with the projector on. My vision is near perfect for those that are curious.

Brightness - The XD is certainly brighter as everyone already knows. The UF material is slightly brighter than my Dragonfly high contrast screen which has a rated gain of 0.8.

Blacks - Even in a pitch black room, the black levels of the UF are a little higher than the XD. As soon as any ambient light is added, the XD starts to wash out. The UF definitely handles ambient light better. 

Colors - both very good. The XD is a little on the cool side, probably from the brightness, and UF seemed to run a little yellow which was noticeable on skin tones.

The one thing i did not test was audio transparency.

Anyway, on to the pictures. Feel free to comment if anyone has any questions.


----------



## cnebrask

I guess I can't post pictures until i have 5 posts


----------



## cnebrask

and another, sorry.


----------



## cnebrask

See below for new pictures..


----------



## cw5billwade

If PJ is calibrated to the dragonfly which is low gain I think that the UF would come out much better and explains why the XD is washed out


----------



## cnebrask

cw5billwade said:


> If PJ is calibrated to the dragonfly which is low gain I think that the UF would come out much better and explains why the XD is washed out


Correct, PJ is calibrated to the Dragonfly screen. The x-rite i1 was used to read reflected light off the screen, and not straight from projector. This was for color tuning only, not brightness. Brightness was manually dialed in and was reduced a little for this test.. from ~60/100 to 50/100 on low lamp mode.


----------



## stitch1

Has anyone added masking to a Seymour Precision frame? I don't really want to pay the higher price for the Premier frame just to add their masking but they say their masking will not work with the smaller frame of the Precision. The other option is split the difference in price and go with Falcon.


----------



## chriscmore

cnebrask -

Did you have a black material behind the samples? If not, then your evaluation isn't valid. Duplicate reflective materials will give you falsely high gains, kill your black levels and introduce pixel bloom. You always want a black secondary layer to any AT screen. If you didn't have a secondary black material behind it, please replace with new pics if you get them.

Chris


----------



## cnebrask

Hey Chris,

I did not have any black material behind the sample. What would your recommend placing between the samples and my screen? I don't think i have any black material laying around. And, I'd be more than happy to re-test and post more pics. I'll even use a better camera next time! 


Chris




chriscmore said:


> cnebrask -
> 
> Did you have a black material behind the samples? If not, then your evaluation isn't valid. Duplicate reflective materials will give you falsely high gains, kill your black levels and introduce pixel bloom. You always want a black secondary layer to any AT screen. If you didn't have a secondary black material behind it, please replace with new pics if you get them.
> 
> Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Anything as dark as possible. Maybe a magazine page, construction paper, of course any fabric. Or you can cut a hole out of that Dragonfly. That would work.

That bleedy Verizon pic was looking like those spandex screen doofuses.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## cnebrask

Construction paper... My wife literally just bought a 1000 sheets at Costco for my 3 yr old son. Although cutting a hole in my screen might be easier!

I'll try to get some new pictures and opinions up tomorrow. 

Thanks!


----------



## blastermaster

> That bleedy Verizon pic was looking like those spandex screen doofuses.


I almost did a spit take with my beer! Good one!


----------



## DavidK442

chriscmore said:


> That bleedy Verizon pic was looking like those spandex screen doofuses.


Ouch...but you're not wrong.



blastermaster said:


> I almost did a spit take with my beer! Good one!


Extra funny as a spandex turned XD user I suppose. If I remember correctly you "saw the diffuse light" and made the jump a couple years ago.


----------



## blastermaster

> Extra funny as a spandex turned XD user I suppose. If I remember correctly you "saw the diffuse light" and made the jump a couple years ago.


Haha yeah and ex-doofus, I hope.


----------



## cnebrask

Chris, I taped the samples to sheets of black Construction paper. I held them up to a 60 watt bulb and could not see any light shinning through. With that said, the results were significant.

I let the projector warm up for 15 minutes or so. The first 3 pictures were taken with accent lights on, about middle of the dimmer. XD is on the left and UF is on the right. 


Startup, some ambient light to each side of screen.


























Lights out, pitch dark


----------



## cw5billwade

Remember the calabration. To be fair you would need to calabration with each sample or us default mode on PJ


----------



## cnebrask

Remember, I only tuned the colors (RGB) with my x-rite on my high contrast screen. No adjustments were made to brightness, contrast, etc, all defaults. If i were nit-picking the colors, which I am not, I would certainly tune the projector to each material. I was really just curious to see how the materials handled ambient light, and how bright (and dark) they are. I'm sure I could gain some black level on the XD material by turning the brightness down, and gain a little brightness on with the UF with some minor tweaking. I also wanted to see how much of the weave I could see at X distance. I was able to eliminate this as an issue with both materials at my seating distance.

In regards to color, with the addition of the black substrate, both materials were very neutral which is good. In my environment, I'm really looking for a material that is AT and can handle a minimal amount of ambient light. The UF material seems to fit the bill for me in this respect. It was only slightly worse than my HC grey screen, which i think is huge compliment.

Also, keep in mind, the image in person looks a good big better in person than in photos. 








cw5billwade said:


> Remember the calabration. To be fair you would need to calabration with each sample or us default mode on PJ


----------



## Potatogod93

Anyone try the ENlightor-Bright? I have tried the Enlightor-4K and like how it looks but am thinking I may need the 1.1 gain and would like to try that out. I emailed Jon but he hasn't responded yet. Thoughts on Enlightor-Bright?


----------



## blipszyc

stitch1 said:


> Has anyone added masking to a Seymour Precision frame? I don't really want to pay the higher price for the Premier frame just to add their masking but they say their masking will not work with the smaller frame of the Precision. The other option is split the difference in price and go with Falcon.



Wondering same thing - Falcon just posted a 5 week delay and was hoping to get something by SB. Plus, falcon doesn't yet have CW masks. 

I'm guessing the masks are sized to the precision frame which is thicker than the premier frame so that's why they won't work. If you tried to use them on premier frames, there'd be a gap. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stitch1

What kind of lead times does it take Seymour to send your screens after ordering. I ordered at possibly the worse time of year but can't seem to get an ETA out of them.


----------



## Sony4k

Hi cnebrask, what is the original screen in your picture above?


----------



## cnebrask

Dragonfly High Contrast grey, which is a vinyl.

I ended up ordering the UF material from Seymour.


----------



## brwsaw

I'm wondering if anyone has a tensioning tip for a stapled DIY screen.
I'm thinking some foam rolls used for crack filling might work. Something like this...
http://www.thefoamfactory.com/blog/...s-with-foam-backer-rod-expansion-joint-filler
between the frame and screen. I'm a bit worried I'll see it but can't think of any other options other than to remove and re install the material.
The material has been somewhat stretched once. I wonder if it'll be easier to get it tight the second time.
I really don't want to wreck it trying.


----------



## cw5billwade

Use a thin dowel and roll it under the frame the whole way around


----------



## stitch1

I received my Seymour XD screen today. First impressions were great with their packaging. They really know how to keep everything safe in transport. I got it all built and hung. We watched guardians of the galaxy on it in scope tonight. I am a very happy camper so far. I can only see a hit of texture when looking for it on really bright white clips. But its a very non issue for me. I had to really be looking and even then it was so faint it shouldn't every bother me. It is way better than my old Elite screen and its sparkles. I haven't put anything behind it just yet. I have some black lineacoustic stuff that was recommended to me but won't be adding it until I receive my new speakers. I could tell there was some washout on bright scenes with dark images. This is no doubt from my somewhat reflective wall behind the screen. Once I have it all setup completely I don't think this will be an issue. 

Overall I am pretty happy with the purchase and the product. Oh and my wife even liked the mounting using the grommet/rubber band things. She has helped me with a Jamestown (never again!) an Elite, and now the Seymour. She said she liked the Elite but this was pretty quick and painless.


----------



## hendry98

stitch1 said:


> I received my Seymour XD screen today. First impressions were great with their packaging. They really know how to keep everything safe in transport. I got it all built and hung. We watched guardians of the galaxy on it in scope tonight. I am a very happy camper so far. I can only see a hit of texture when looking for it on really bright white clips. But its a very non issue for me. I had to really be looking and even then it was so faint it shouldn't every bother me. It is way better than my old Elite screen and its sparkles. I haven't put anything behind it just yet. I have some black lineacoustic stuff that was recommended to me but won't be adding it until I receive my new speakers. I could tell there was some washout on bright scenes with dark images. This is no doubt from my somewhat reflective wall behind the screen. Once I have it all setup completely I don't think this will be an issue.
> 
> Overall I am pretty happy with the purchase and the product. Oh and my wife even liked the mounting using the grommet/rubber band things. She has helped me with a Jamestown (never again!) an Elite, and now the Seymour. She said she liked the Elite but this was pretty quick and painless.


Thanks for sharing, I have also order from Seymour, XD 150", very great service. But I have not opened the packaging since my HT is still in construction stage, and I cannot wait to enjoy this great screen.

Just wondering since you mentioned something about seeing the texture, from what distance you could see it? this to help me figure out my sweet spot distance. I was thinking like 14.5' to be my sweet spot to be in the safe side. so what do you think?

Thanks,


----------



## StevenC56

Anybody with an XD retractable scope screen figure out a decent way to side mask your screen for non scope viewing?


----------



## stitch1

hendry98 said:


> Thanks for sharing, I have also order from Seymour, XD 150", very great service. But I have not opened the packaging since my HT is still in construction stage, and I cannot wait to enjoy this great screen.
> 
> Just wondering since you mentioned something about seeing the texture, from what distance you could see it? this to help me figure out my sweet spot distance. I was thinking like 14.5' to be my sweet spot to be in the safe side. so what do you think?
> 
> Thanks,


Sitting just under 12 feet from a 130 wide I can hardly see the texture. I have to really be looking for it and it has to be a very bright white image that is slightly moving. lol I don't think you will have any issues at all at 14 feet away.


----------



## hendry98

stitch1 said:


> Sitting just under 12 feet from a 130 wide I can hardly see the texture. I have to really be looking for it and it has to be a very bright white image that is slightly moving. lol I don't think you will have any issues at all at 14 feet away.


Awesome!

Thanks for your feedback


----------



## StevenC56

StevenC56 said:


> Anybody with an XD retractable scope screen figure out a decent way to side mask your screen for non scope viewing?


While searching a couple days ago for posts about DIY side masks, I ran across an older post where somebody had made his masking frames from wood rulers. Like a dummy I forgot to bookmark the page and can't find it now. Anybody?


----------



## DavidK442

StevenC56 said:


> While searching a couple days ago for posts about DIY side masks, I ran across an older post where somebody had made his masking frames from wood rulers. Like a dummy I forgot to bookmark the page and can't find it now. Anybody?



I believe it was JimmyK36's theater.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ome-theater-build-2-0-diy-erskine-design.html


----------



## StevenC56

DavidK442 said:


> I believe it was JimmyK36's theater.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ome-theater-build-2-0-diy-erskine-design.html


Thanks! That's not the one I found yesterday, but it helps. The one I was looking for used a single layer of wood rulers for the mask frames.


----------



## Sonyad

StevenC56 said:


> While searching a couple days ago for posts about DIY side masks, I ran across an older post where somebody had made his masking frames from wood rulers. Like a dummy I forgot to bookmark the page and can't find it now. Anybody?


Here you go http://www.avsforum.com/forum/110-d...k-frame-masking-system-pull-down-screens.html


----------



## StevenC56

Sonyad said:


> Here you go http://www.avsforum.com/forum/110-d...k-frame-masking-system-pull-down-screens.html


Thank You!


----------



## Tnedator

I shot Chris an email, but you guys might be able to answer this. 

If I get a 2.35 fixed frame screen (straight, not curved) with XD material. Can I get two sets of AT masking panels? One that would mask to 1.85 and one set that would mask to 1.78? I'm not sure if they are flexible on their masking panels or if they always do them for 1.78 only.


----------



## chriscmore

Tnedator said:


> I shot Chris an email, but you guys might be able to answer this.
> 
> If I get a 2.35 fixed frame screen (straight, not curved) with XD material. Can I get two sets of AT masking panels? One that would mask to 1.85 and one set that would mask to 1.78? I'm not sure if they are flexible on their masking panels or if they always do them for 1.78 only.


You can certainly get two sets of AT masking panels, although they would only be 2" different for each ratio (15.8"w each for 16:9, 13.8"w each for 1.85).

In theory we could make one set panels movable with alternate magnet locations to cover both ratios, although since you're only talking 2" differences, our wide magnets would need to be narrowed. Other disadvantages include losing the side magnets and seeing the screen if a 1.85 mask were moved inward for 16:9 masking. I'll assume I don't need to look into this idea further unless you insist.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Tnedator

Hey Chris, thanks for the email and forum reply.


----------



## Stretch002

So what's a guy gotta do to actually get a sample of the UF material? I filled out your online request form before the new year and received a reply on 1/2/15 asking for my mailing address. I replied and haven't heard anything since. I sent a follow up email to Jon on 12/12/15 and also filled out another online request with my mailing address included. So far no communication and three weeks of disappointment at my mailbox. Queue sad horn: Wah...Wah

I need to decide soon whether changing my regular Screen Innovation screen to an AT screen will degrade my picture. Please help!

Ps. Don't feel bad as I also sent a request to Falcon Screens and haven't heard anything either.


----------



## Stretch002

So what's a guy gotta do to actually get a sample of the UF material? I filled out your online request form before the new year and received a reply on 1/2/15 asking for my mailing address. I replied and haven't heard anything since. I sent a follow up email to Jon on 12/12/15 and also filled out another online request with my mailing address included. So far no communication and three weeks of disappointment at my mailbox. Queue sad horn: Wah...Wah

I need to decide soon whether changing my regular Screen Innovation screen to an AT screen will degrade my picture. Please help!

Ps. Don't feel bad as I also sent a request to Falcon Screens and haven't heard anything either.


----------



## Stretch002

Sorry for the double post. Internet connection hiccup!


----------



## colofan

Installed an XD screen and I am very pleased with results. Going through with the audio calibration in the next couple of weeks.
Good product and if I was to do again probably by the upgraded frame.


----------



## colofan

Installed an XD screen and I am very pleased with results. Going through with the audio calibration in the next couple of weeks.
Good product and if I was to do again probably by the upgraded frame.


----------



## chriscmore

Jon told me your sample is going out tomorrow. Sorry he's behind. I flog him daily to catch up but ironically Friday he spent hours putting together sample packs (for reps).

When Rich / Falcon requested samples from me for a "project" he had going on I sent them out the next day. When I heard of his "project" and requested reciprocation of samples, he didn't reply to me either. I have several far more classy and literate competitors, so would help you with them if the situation or your desire wanted.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Stretch002

Thanks for sending me a sample Chris. I can't wait to see if an AT screen will work for me. I am REALLY hoping it will! have a terrific evening!


----------



## Thomas Newell

Ordered a XD 130" 2.35 screen on 1/9 and got confirmation of order on same day. The wait is killing me as everything else is coming in now; projector, AVR, speakers, lighting, etc. Oh the pain.


----------



## AlphaG

Will the XD material work well for 4K at 12' viewing distance? I need an AT screen with as little loss of gain as possible and this screen is tested and performs well (but tested I think at 1080).


----------



## turls

AlphaG said:


> Will the XD material work well for 4K at 12' viewing distance? I need an AT screen with as little loss of gain as possible and this screen is tested and performs well (but tested I think at 1080).


Yes.


----------



## Cam Man

AlphaG said:


> Will the XD material work well for 4K at 12' viewing distance? I need an AT screen with as little loss of gain as possible and this screen is tested and performs well (but tested I think at 1080).


 
"Work well"? Are you asking if the image will have nominal perceived resolution or if it will moiré? Both depend to some extent on the size of the screen your projector will be filling, and your visual acuity. You should always test a sample.


----------



## edfowler

I have had two Centerstage XD screens for as long as the material has been out (I ordered them the week they were available) and have been very happy with them. I run a JVC 4810 in high lamp mode on a 10 1/2' wide 2.35 scope screen for one and 12' wide 16:9 screen for the other with a Samsung sp-a800b DLP projector in high lamp mode as well.

Even though I have been totally satisfied with the set up as it is for some reason I started reading the Seymour thread and see that there is a new (to me) UH fabric. 

My question is: has anyone gone from a Centerstage XD screen to one with the UH fabric? If so, what do you think?

ed


----------



## edfowler

I have had two Centerstage XD screens for as long as the material has been out (I ordered them the week they were available) and have been very happy with them. I run a JVC 4810 in high lamp mode on a 10 1/2' wide 2.35 scope screen for one and 12' wide 16:9 screen for the other with a Samsung sp-a800b DLP projector in high lamp mode as well.

Even though I have been totally satisfied with the set up as it is for some reason I started reading the Seymour thread and see that there is a new (to me) UH fabric. 

My question is: has anyone gone from a Centerstage XD screen to one with the UH fabric? If so, what do you think?

ed


----------



## DavidK442

edfowler said:


> I have had two Centerstage XD screens for as long as the material has been out (I ordered them the week they were available) and have been very happy with them. I run a JVC 4810 in high lamp mode on a 10 1/2' wide 2.35 scope screen for one and 12' wide 16:9 screen for the other with a Samsung sp-a800b DLP projector in high lamp mode as well.
> 
> Even though I have been totally satisfied with the set up as it is for some reason I started reading the Seymour thread and see that there is a new (to me) UH fabric.
> 
> My question is: has anyone gone from a Centerstage XD screen to one with the UH fabric? If so, what do you think?
> 
> ed


Did you mean Centerstage UF?
In my mind, the only reason to go with the UF is if you are sitting close enough that the XD weave is visible. Given the lower gain of the UF material (0.8 vs 1.0) it would likely not be a good choice for your large sized screens.


----------



## pgrenier16

chriscmore said:


> Jon told me your sample is going out tomorrow. Sorry he's behind. I flog him daily to catch up but ironically Friday he spent hours putting together sample packs (for reps).
> 
> When Rich / Falcon requested samples from me for a "project" he had going on I sent them out the next day. When I heard of his "project" and requested reciprocation of samples, he didn't reply to me either. I have several far more classy and literate competitors, so would help you with them if the situation or your desire wanted.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hi Chris. Looks like Jon may still be behind on things? I sent him an email a few days ago as well as a second one attempting to order a tab-tensioned screen. He has not responded. I am looking for a quick turnaround time. I would gladly just order it on the website, but that is not an option. Can you give him a nudge for me??? Thanks.


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Paul - Email replied to.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## rgswff3

Chris,
Been trying to get a response for a little over a week now but no response to my emails, calls or PMs about the question I have concerning the masking panels I received. Any chance you can respond to my emails?


----------



## Darkrider

Hello, was hoping someone could answer my question. I recently received my Seymour Center Stage retractable screen. I'd like to adjust the stop so that the black portion above the screen is slightly reduced. There are two hex adjustments that can be made, a white and a yellow. 

I really don't want to damage / screw up the screen, so I figured it better to ask first as I'm sure someone here has had a similar experience. Which do I turn, and in what direction to reduce the total drop distance?

Thanks guys.


----------



## chriscmore

rgswff3 said:


> Chris,
> Been trying to get a response for a little over a week now but no response to my emails, calls or PMs about the question I have concerning the masking panels I received. Any chance you can respond to my emails?


Hi Roger -

Ship back your 1.5"w velvet AT panels and we'll recover them with 3.5"w velvet.

Seymour AV
2207 229th Pl
Ames, IA 50014
515-268-3369

Chris


----------



## Darkrider

Darkrider said:


> Hello, was hoping someone could answer my question. I recently received my Seymour Center Stage retractable screen. I'd like to adjust the stop so that the black portion above the screen is slightly reduced. There are two hex adjustments that can be made, a white and a yellow.
> 
> I really don't want to damage / screw up the screen, so I figured it better to ask first as I'm sure someone here has had a similar experience. Which do I turn, and in what direction to reduce the total drop distance?
> 
> Thanks guys.


I figured it out, but for reference, the bottom hex socket adjusts how far down the screen goes the top one adjusts how far up into the case it retracts.

It's simple to tell because if you increase (turn towards the +) the socket that adjusts how far down the screen goes the motor engages and the screen drops. This is how you can tell you're using the correct socket.


----------



## TedO

Just a quick update:

I have now lived with my 150" curved XD screen for about 6 months (using a Sony HW50ES projector). I have had dozens of people over to watch a movie or football game during this time. Everyone has been completely blown away by the size and quality of the image.

I have to reiterate, my Seymour XD screen purchase is one of the best choices I made building my home theater. It wasn't "cheap" but it was a great deal when you consider the alternatives on the market. This screen will outlive the projectors that will eventually find their way through my system and will only reason it would be replaced is when Seymour comes up with a new material that will justify the upgrade. At that time I hope to still be able to use my Precision Frame because it is a masterpiece, I don't think you will find a better frame at any price.


----------



## arc trooper

heres a stupid question... got my seymour xd material yesterday from the fedex man... now...for the stupid question... the textured side is the one that goes out facing YOU right???? cuz thats the way it was rolled and id really like to NOT screw this up! any help would be greatly appreciated


----------



## deromax

arc trooper said:


> heres a stupid question... got my seymour xd material yesterday from the fedex man... now...for the stupid question... the textured side is the one that goes out facing YOU right???? cuz thats the way it was rolled and id really like to NOT screw this up! any help would be greatly appreciated


Unless something changed, both side are useable as the projection surface but the side inside the roll is the one that was inspected for blemishes before shipping.


----------



## chriscmore

TedO said:


> Just a quick update:
> 
> I have now lived with my 150" curved XD screen for about 6 months (using a Sony HW50ES projector). I have had dozens of people over to watch a movie or football game during this time. Everyone has been completely blown away by the size and quality of the image.
> 
> I have to reiterate, my Seymour XD screen purchase is one of the best choices I made building my home theater. It wasn't "cheap" but it was a great deal when you consider the alternatives on the market. This screen will outlive the projectors that will eventually find their way through my system and will only reason it would be replaced is when Seymour comes up with a new material that will justify the upgrade. At that time I hope to still be able to use my Precision Frame because it is a masterpiece, I don't think you will find a better frame at any price.


I'm sorry but the XD screen is not for use with a Vikings rug. Substitute with Packers or Chiefs for best performance.

Are you using an anamorphic lens? How's your image geometry?


Chris


----------



## arc trooper

deromax said:


> Unless something changed, both side are useable as the projection surface but the side inside the roll is the one that was inspected for blemishes before shipping.


ya i called chris and got it figured out thanks! i just had to unroll it backwards lol


----------



## TedO

Chris,

Yes, I am using a Panamorph UH480 lens with my projector. The image geometry was perfect until I had to take down the projector to rerun some cables. When I put it back up the left side has a slight "bend", nothing dramtic and something that will be corrected once I have time to play with it.

I did have our end of year fantasy party in my HT and had about 20 Packer fans watching the championship game. As a Viking fan I knew exactly how they felt after that game.


----------



## coolgeek

I thought I might share this pic here for ppl looking to buy the centerstage XD and worry whether it can support a 4K image... 

This is a 16:9 curved, 10 feet wide Centerstage XD with the Sony 4K projector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary viewing of the Sony 500ES 4K projector on the Centerstage XD screen.

My initial reaction? Absolutely stunning pictures. 

On HD projectors the XD material's weave is visible up to 10 feet or so, but it seems that when you use the 4K projector you can go much closer without seeing the weave.. I do not yet know how to explain this. I mean, a weave is a weave right? But my gut feeling is that the 'weave' we see may be a combination of 'pixel size + weave' rather than just 'weave'. 

With the 4K projector, the image is silky smooth, baby bottom smooth... (enter your own analogy here).

When watching 3D, i can even walk up to my 10 feet wide screen and look right through it, like looking out a window. 3D has never been better (not even on the IMAX), as this projector on a 10 feet wide 0.9 gain screen is brighter than the image on the IMAX and with much better contrast and black levels. Space looks like absolute black... stars looks like stars... 

Anyways, judge for yourself.. the image is taken about 9 feet away.. zoom in and see if you can see any weave. BTW: this pic was taken by my Samsung phone... the actual image is way smoother and much better colors...

BTW: This is an upscaled 1080p music video from a DTS demo track. Imagine what a 'real' 4K source would be like.


----------



## coolgeek

Jon,

Now that i have the CenterStage XD material over my premier frame, would it possible to also order the EN4K material so i can put it on this screen to compare? I am itching to find out if i am missing anything...


----------



## cshuff

coolgeek said:


> Jon,
> 
> Now that i have the CenterStage XD material over my premier frame, would it possible to also order the EN4K material so i can put it on this screen to compare? I am itching to find out if i am missing anything...


Coolgeek,

Awesome theater! I too will be having a similar JTR setup with Seymour XD screen, and possibly the Sony 500/600. I'm pondering the 212's vs the 215 RM's. I have a couple quick questions for you...

1. Why did you choose the curved screen? Do you need an anamorphic lens for the 500 with the curved screen or do you feel that it is not required?
2. What made you decide to choose the 16:9 screen as opposed to the 2.35 aspect ratio? Does the 500 scale between the two as you expected. Are you masking? 

Thanks for your time!
Chad


----------



## coolgeek

cshuff said:


> Coolgeek,
> 
> Awesome theater! I too will be having a similar JTR setup with Seymour XD screen, and possibly the Sony 500/600. I'm pondering the 212's vs the 215 RM's. I have a couple quick questions for you...
> 
> 1. Why did you choose the curved screen? Do you need an anamorphic lens for the 500 with the curved screen or do you feel that it is not required?
> 2. What made you decide to choose the 16:9 screen as opposed to the 2.35 aspect ratio? Does the 500 scale between the two as you expected. Are you masking?
> 
> Thanks for your time!
> Chad


1. No need for anamorphic lens as the Sony is capable of displaying the entire image on it's chip set and have lens memory. You just need to use the zoom feature to set the different aspect ratio and it'll remember it. The reason i used a curved screen with aspect 16:9 is so that it looks like an imax screen.. My seating position is 10 feet from a 10 feet wide screen so that gives me a very wide viewing angle to the screen, and thus the effect of immersiveness... plus, a bit of curve means the light bouncing off the side walls isn't as much as a flat screen, increasing contrast.

2. My room is narrow, only about 10.5 feet wide where i place my screen, so to maximize the screen size, i used a 16:9... 16:9 wall to wall, ceiling to floor is awesome! very immersive... of course if your room, the limiting factor is the height, then you can maximize the height and have a 'longer screen' format wall to wall.. so, you maximize your viewing size for all diff formats...


----------



## coolgeek

Some more photos of the Sony 500ES 4K Projector.

Remember: The photos here are just examples of the quality, brightness (at low lamp mode on a 10 feet wide screen)... the actual image is way, way smoother, better colors, and much nicer overall than these photos.. Some of these photos were taken when 'paused' which somehow makes the image softer and less sharp... also, some were taken while moving, so also may be out of focus.. the actual photos were very, very sharp and focused and full of details.. you can see the tiny hairs on the neck for instance... I would say twice as good as these. (taken with my samsung phone).

Some info:

1. Sony 500ES 4K Projector.
2. 10 feet wide, 16:9 screen with Centerstage XD material.
3. Blu-Ray 1080p upscaled to 4K by the projector.

Remember:

1. Some of these photos were taken when paused and that somehow makes the image softer and a bit out of focus. Some were taken while the movie was playing and also seems a little out of focus as well. 

2. The actual images were FAR better than these. Much sharper and you can fee far more details.

3. You can see how bright the images were even when in low lamp mode (these were in low lamp). And it's full of pop.

4. Contrast were excellent, Black levels were as good as it's going to get. (I might try out the UF material and see if that can improve the dark levels further.. ).

5. Colors were excellent. I can't believe how good they were.. so much better than my tv or any cinemas i have been to.

6. Something to note, when I was auditioning the CenterStage XD materials with a HD projector, I could see the weave from 10 feet away. When played on this 4K projector, i can go as close as 6-7 feet and it's still silky smooth. Don't ask me why. I think the pixels of the 4K projector has something to do with it... You can see from the photos, most of which were taken from 7 feet away, it's very smooth... no weave at all..


----------



## brwsaw

I'm close enough for 4k...me want soo bad...


----------



## coolgeek

brwsaw said:


> I'm close enough for 4k...me want soo bad...


You won't go wrong with the Sony 4K... 

Someone took this picture with a special mirror-less camera... this is how good upscaled bluray looks like... at times, i don't even know i am not watching real 4k...


----------



## pgwalsh

brwsaw said:


> I'm close enough for 4k...me want soo bad...


I'm getting there. I plan to do an Absolute 130 (as large as I can go), but I want a native 4K projector that can stretch the screen for 2.37:1. From what I understand, there's nothing that can do that and I have no idea how long I'll be waiting.
@coolgeek

That picture looks great.


----------



## coolgeek

pgwalsh said:


> I'm getting there. I plan to do an Absolute 130 (as large as I can go), but I want a native 4K projector that can stretch the screen for 2.37:1. From what I understand, there's nothing that can do that and I have no idea how long I'll be waiting.
> @coolgeek
> 
> That picture looks great.


Thanks... I didn't take that picture but it's close to what the 4K images looks like on screen... 

And just when I thought 4K 2D were as good as it gets, once i turned on Gravity, dang... i have a 16:9 curved screen, and sitting 10 feet away, i felt like looking down, out a spacecraft window... 

The 3D experience was actually better than Imax... (the issue with imax is it's still a HD projector, and the light output wasn't that great, black levels weren't as good).. on the Sony 4K, blacks were absolute black, light was really bright, and pictures were popping... plus, the images were so clear and sharp, you feel like you can touch the people on there... 

I ended up going through all my 3D blu rays... in the end, gravity had the best images... I also noticed that when the 'content' was of great quality, the black levels and contrast on the Sony were excellent.. even in the night scenes, it was like actually looking out your car window at night... (well, almost)... but when the source material weren't great to start with, the blacks becomes grey... godzilla is one of them... it's hard to watch actually.. especially when most of the scenes were dark... in fact, i don't even know why godzilla was so bad considering it's not an old movie.. it's got the quality of 20 year old films (scenes in the dark)... in light, it was totally great!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

pgwalsh said:


> I'm getting there. I plan to do an Absolute 130 (as large as I can go), but I want a native 4K projector that can stretch the screen for 2.37:1. From what I understand, there's nothing that can do that and I have no idea how long I'll be waiting.
> @coolgeek
> 
> That picture looks great.


Do you have an anamorphic lens, and how close do you sit?

If you don't have a lens you can zoom the image for 2.37, and if you don't intend on moving your seating closer for 4k, the 4k pixels will be smaller than the 1080 pixels with a lens would be.

Gary


----------



## pgwalsh

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Do you have an anamorphic lens, and how close do you sit?
> 
> If you don't have a lens you can zoom the image for 2.37, and if you don't intend on moving your seating closer for 4k, the 4k pixels will be smaller than the 1080 pixels with a lens would be.
> 
> Gary


I have a Panamorph UH480 with sled. I'd prefer to use a lens over zoom method. I'm in a new house and our new theater room is just a skeleton. It's 19.5x18.3 with sheetrock or anything and I plan to have 2 rows of seats. I have my Planar/Runco LS5 projector, but I'd like to upgrade to 4K in the next year or two.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Ok. The reason I asked was because a few people who have gone from 1080 with a lens to 4k have now sold the lens (and some have kept them of course). One guy I know with an ISCO II who now has a JVC X500 (e-shift) has the lens up for sale as he couldn't see any advantage when using it after comparing. 

With zooming you don't have to worry about needing an additional scaler for the vertical stretch or wait for a 4k pj that can do it.

I have an ISCO II as well, and I really liked the Sony 300 (350 in US) when I saw it from a closer seating distance using the zoom method (2.5m from a 3m wide 2.37 screen), and I have to say it looked great. He had an ISCO III which he has now sold.

So now I'm torn between selling mine or keeping it, as I'll be upgrading to a JVC with e-shift or 4K pj in the hopefully not too distant future.

Gary


----------



## pgwalsh

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Ok. The reason I asked was because a few people who have gone from 1080 with a lens to 4k have now sold the lens (and some have kept them of course). One guy I know with an ISCO II who now has a JVC X500 (e-shift) has the lens up for sale as he couldn't see any advantage when using it after comparing.
> 
> With zooming you don't have to worry about needing an additional scaler for the vertical stretch or wait for a 4k pj that can do it.
> 
> I have an ISCO II as well, and I really liked the Sony 300 (350 in US) when I saw it from a closer seating distance using the zoom method (2.5m from a 3m wide 2.37 screen), and I have to say it looked great. He had an ISCO III which he has now sold.
> 
> So now I'm torn between selling mine or keeping it, as I'll be upgrading to a JVC with e-shift or 4K pj in the hopefully not too distant future.
> 
> Gary


It makes sense and I can see why people would do it. Do the subtitles get adjusted or do you have to do that within a dvd player? 

I've read that zooming in you loose pixel density. I'll have to see if any local theater stores in my area have a 4k setup. I've never been to any of the local stores.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Subtitles will need to be adjusted if they fall in the black bars but that can happen with both zooming or a lens - with zooming they fall into the black bar below the image and are difficult to read, and with a lens the parts in the bar are cut off completely. All of the modern scope movies I've seen have the subtitles inside the image though.

With a 4k pj you lose 2 million pixels, so there's a definite reduction in pixel density, and if you notice that then you definitely need to keep the lens. Another way of looking at it is that you've spent a lot of money on those pixels so would be a shame to not use them. It's a tough call either way.

Gary


----------



## cw5billwade

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Subtitles will need to be adjusted if they fall in the black bars but that can happen with both zooming or a lens - with zooming they fall into the black bar below the image and are difficult to read, and with a lens the parts in the bar are cut off completely. All of the modern scope movies I've seen have the subtitles inside the image though.
> 
> With a 4k pj you lose 2 million pixels, so there's a definite reduction in pixel density, and if you notice that then you definitely need to keep the lens. Another way of looking at it is that you've spent a lot of money on those pixels so would be a shame to not use them. It's a tough call either way.
> 
> Gary


That is why I like my 2.0:1 screen the subtitles are no issue with 2.40:1 content when they are below the image they are still on the screen.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I tried CIA but found that for me, scope was still a bit too small compared to 16:9. It's certainly an improvement over 16:9 though.

I can't remember the last film that was subtitled and a problem tbh. I think it was the Japanese edition of Kill Bill 1, though I think that was because the subtitles were either on all the time or off, so you had to be ready with the subtitle 'on' button on the remote to bring them up during those particular scenes.

Gary


----------



## Romans828

Gary Lightfoot said:


> With zooming you don't have to worry about needing an additional scaler for the vertical stretch or wait for a 4k pj that can do it.
> 
> 
> Gary


Wow. This really has me torn. We are starting on a new home with a dedicated theater next month. I plan to go with a 4K projector. I may wait for the replacement/next gen of the Sony VW600ES. I don't have a lens and have been contemplating if I should buy one. 

So with an anamorphic lens, you have to buy a scaler...something like a Lumagen too? I didn't realize that. 

The price of the lens and sled is high enough...especially if you buy new. It eats at me either way. I hate to spend that kind of money but hate to not do it the "best" way too...if the quality/brightness difference is significant. I am planning on using a 140 inch Center Stage screen. I've been told that I would need a lens for a screen that large.


----------



## DavidK442

Romans828 said:


> Wow. This really has me torn. We are starting on a new home with a dedicated theater next month. I plan to go with a 4K projector. I may wait for the replacement/next gen of the Sony VW600ES. I don't have a lens and have been contemplating if I should buy one.
> 
> So with an anamorphic lens, you have to buy a scaler...something like a Lumagen too? I didn't realize that.
> 
> The price of the lens and sled is high enough...especially if you buy new. It eats at me either way. I hate to spend that kind of money but hate to not do it the "best" way too...if the quality/brightness difference is significant. I am planning on using a 140 inch Center Stage screen. I've been told that I would need a lens for a screen that large.


If you do some digging in threads specific to the topic you will likely find that the benefits of an anamorphic lens vs zoom with 1080p content are minor, if noticeable at all. When you bump up to 4K the only advantage I can fathom is that you can go wide screen without being limited to projectors having motorized functions.


----------



## coolgeek

Romans828 said:


> Wow. This really has me torn. We are starting on a new home with a dedicated theater next month. I plan to go with a 4K projector. I may wait for the replacement/next gen of the Sony VW600ES. I don't have a lens and have been contemplating if I should buy one.
> 
> So with an anamorphic lens, you have to buy a scaler...something like a Lumagen too? I didn't realize that.
> 
> The price of the lens and sled is high enough...especially if you buy new. It eats at me either way. I hate to spend that kind of money but hate to not do it the "best" way too...if the quality/brightness difference is significant. I am planning on using a 140 inch Center Stage screen. I've been told that I would need a lens for a screen that large.



I have a 10 feet wide XD screen, 16:9... and it was plenty bright enough in a completely blacked out room... even at eco mode which i use all the time now... it's the brightest projected image i have ever seen in my life (all the cinemas i went to combined.. including the imax)... if light is what you're worried about, don't.....


----------



## Romans828

coolgeek said:


> I have a 10 feet wide XD screen, 16:9... and it was plenty bright enough in a completely blacked out room... even at eco mode which i use all the time now... it's the brightest projected image i have ever seen in my life (all the cinemas i went to combined.. including the imax)... if light is what you're worried about, don't.....


Thanks for the information. I've learned that there are people on this forum that obsess about things that our natural senses can't even recognize. I've seen this both on the audio and video side of things. The problem is that often there just isn't an easy way to demo expensive equipment to see for yourself prior to purchase. You can end up spending a lot of extra money for the "...just in case" scenarios. However, I do know when I visit our local IMAX theater, I can see a big difference in picture quality in comparison to the "standard" theaters. That kind of thing is what concerns me in regard to zooming which is enlarging the pixels.


----------



## deromax

With zooming, you lose pixels that aren't on the disc in the first place (the black bars!) but the remaining pixels must now be bigger.

With a lens, you use all the projector pixels but you need a scaling that may introduce artifacts, you have a lens that may introduce artifacts, distorsion and a slight loss of light and you have an additionnal cost.

This isn't an all white or all black situation! A tradeoff must be made in either way!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

A good lens and good scaler produce an image with no visible artefacts, and allows you to sit closer to the screen before pixels or image coarseness become a problem.

For example, if Art Sonneborn sits in his front row, he can see pixels all the time, and he would have to sit in the back row for the image to become acceptable. With the lens in place he can sit in the front row.

It all depends on the tech you're using and how close you sit. Sometimes, until you see the improvement a lens can make, you don't realise your image can be improved. With 4k I doubt the difference is that visible to be worth it.

Gary.


----------



## coolgeek

Romans828 said:


> Thanks for the information. I've learned that there are people on this forum that obsess about things that our natural senses can't even recognize. I've seen this both on the audio and video side of things. The problem is that often there just isn't an easy way to demo expensive equipment to see for yourself prior to purchase. You can end up spending a lot of extra money for the "...just in case" scenarios. However, I do know when I visit our local IMAX theater, I can see a big difference in picture quality in comparison to the "standard" theaters. That kind of thing is what concerns me in regard to zooming which is enlarging the pixels.





deromax said:


> With zooming, you lose pixels that aren't on the disc in the first place (the black bars!) but the remaining pixels must now be bigger.
> 
> With a lens, you use all the projector pixels but you need a scaling that may introduce artifacts, you have a lens that may introduce artifacts, distorsion and a slight loss of light and you have an additionnal cost.
> 
> This isn't an all white or all black situation! A tradeoff must be made in either way!





Gary Lightfoot said:


> A good lens and good scaler produce an image with no visible artefacts, and allows you to sit closer to the screen before pixels or image coarseness become a problem.
> 
> For example, if Art Sonneborn sits in his front row, he can see pixels all the time, and he would have to sit in the back row for the image to become acceptable. With the lens in place he can sit in the front row.
> 
> It all depends on the tech you're using and how close you sit. Sometimes, until you see the improvement a lens can make, you don't realise your image can be improved. With 4k I doubt the difference is that visible to be worth it.
> 
> Gary.


Here's my 2 cents on this matter...

I have seen HD projectors with or without an A-lens, and the A-lens do provide some additional 'pop' and light output... 

However, when I compare the Sony 4K projector (without a lens) to a JVC HD projector with a lens, the Sony beats out the JVC with or without a lens.. so, for people who are happy with a HD projector which doesn't have as much lumens to begin with, then the Sony will beat out all your expectations..

As for sitting closer and pixel size and all that.. i say, wait till you try a 4K projector, sit as close as you like, zoom in as much as you want, and if you still don't see any pixels, then it's all good..

I can tell you, with a good quality Blu-Ray, and the Sony's upscaling, I could literally be standing 6 feet away from my 10 feet wide 16:9 screen (with the projector maxed out on it's zoom), and still the image is Chrystal clear, baby smooth, and felt like 'real' life... this is in 3D of course... I could not imagine how investing in an A-lens could do any better.. mind you it might, but the quality already far, far surpassed all my needs, there was no need to spend that extra money chasing a unicorn that might not exist... 

So, to recap, with a screen of 0.9 gain (the XD material), and the Sony 500ES, i have, for 2D, I have great light output and totally satisfied in eco mode.. and for 3D, i use high lamp mode, and picture have never been brighter (i have yet to see a brighter 3D image, either from the cinema or even from my tv)... it was really bright, full of pop... 

In the end, my suggestion is, before adding stuff to the mix, just see if you're happy... 

The reason I say this is because before i got the projector, i went through the entire thought process as well.. i was almost going to spend a ton of money on a high quality A-lens, and all that extra setup, but i sure am glad i didn't...  I am already way over budget as it is...


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I agree about 4k - that's why I'm considering selling my lens now as the pixels with 4k when zoomed will still be smaller than the pixels with 1080 and a lens.

With 1080 zooming wasn't good enough for the seating distance I like. For me, it's all about pixel density and the advantages it brings, and nothing to do with light output (I like my image to be around 12fL and not brighter so I will dim the image any way). In some cases, depending on where in the zoom you are with the projector, going from 2.35 with lens to 16:9 without would delivery very similar levels of reflectance so making the light output a non issue. 

A perfect example is a friend who has been using an ISCO II with his JVC projectors. He measures only one lux difference between 16:9 and 2.35 with lens. He now has a JVC with e-shift and after doing a comparison has seen what we already thought - with 4k (or fau 4k in this case) a lens isn't as necessary as it is with 1080.

Before I bought a lens, I borrowed a basic prism lens to see. It was OK but I needed to see a better lens for a better idea of what they were like and if they were worth it. I then bought a better one that had a 14 day full refund returns policy, so if I didn't see any advantage I could return it. This was with a 720 pj back then, and the difference in image quality was very noticeable, so I kept it.

Later when an ISCO lens came up on the classifieds here, I bought it at a good price just to see if it was better than the prism lens. I could easily sell it on if it wasn't an upgrade. Due to the astigmatism correction it was a further improvement, so I kept the ISCO and sold the prism lens. The ISCO works fine with 1080 too, but the prism lens didn't have the astigmatism correction so wouldn't have been suitable.

The only way to know is to test and see for yourself. The guy I mentioned above with the JVC did the same thing and kept the lens too, until 4k arrived.

Gary


----------



## Romans828

Thanks for all of the great information. Based on this, I think that I will bypass the lens and spend that money on a good 4K projector. It will be late 2015 to early 2016 before I purchase. Maybe a replacement/next gen of the vw600es will be out by then. Maybe prices will start to creep down as well.


----------



## pgwalsh

After reading your posts and this post: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1611434-uhd-4k-quandary-buy-not-buy.html, I've decided I'll wait a couple years, but I'll put up a 4K screen now or at least later this year when I'm don't building my theater room. I have a Runco LS5 and a lens and I'm quite happy with it. I'm not a latest an greatest person anyway. My main TV is still a rear projection DLP. 

The last several posts have been very interesting and informative.

Oh and I wish Folding Spaces was added to the blu-ray spec. That would have been fantastic.


----------



## deromax

I use a Panasonic projector with their Smooth Screen™ technology, and there are no pixels to be seen, even at 2 feet. YMMV.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Romans828 said:


> Thanks for all of the great information. Based on this, I think that I will bypass the lens and spend that money on a good 4K projector. It will be late 2015 to early 2016 before I purchase. Maybe a replacement/next gen of the vw600es will be out by then. Maybe prices will start to creep down as well.


Good idea. If you already had a lens then it makes the decision a little harder, but if you don't have one, with 4k I wouldn't really think it worth the cost, even if there was a small difference, or unless the lens was very cheap (unlikely).



deromax said:


> I use a Panasonic projector with their Smooth Screen™ technology, and there are no pixels to be seen, even at 2 feet. YMMV.


Source pixels still get magnified by 33% in both directions and will look coarser than using a lens with scaling, so even with smoothscreen there is still a benefit with half a million added pixels to render the image.

Gary


----------



## coolgeek

pgwalsh said:


> After reading your posts and this post: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1611434-uhd-4k-quandary-buy-not-buy.html, I've decided I'll wait a couple years, but I'll put up a 4K screen now or at least later this year when I'm don't building my theater room. I have a Runco LS5 and a lens and I'm quite happy with it. I'm not a latest an greatest person anyway. My main TV is still a rear projection DLP.
> 
> The last several posts have been very interesting and informative.
> 
> Oh and I wish Folding Spaces was added to the blu-ray spec. That would have been fantastic.


You could probably get a 4K projector for much cheaper than today in a year's time. And to me, the biggest improvement, other than the Sound System I have is the Projector I got... IT's worth every penny. Everytime I look at a regular HD projector nowadays, they look like standard def... even my TV looks bad...



deromax said:


> I use a Panasonic projector with their Smooth Screen™ technology, and there are no pixels to be seen, even at 2 feet. YMMV.


I have seen the Panasonic smooth screen. It basically makes everything 'soft'... very different from the extremely sharp 4K images projected by the sony.. you're not getting any higher resolution, just smoother... you still can't sit very close... with the upscaled 4K, images seems like true 4K... I have no idea where all the extra content comes from, but Sony does a real good job of upscaling... you can see every wart, pimple, tiny hairs behind someone's back, freckles, the lines in someone's eyes close up, etc... it's just amazing!!


----------



## blastermaster

When you aren't using a lens and have a 2.35:1 screen and zoom, do you get light spill on the top and bottom of the screen or does the projector somehow account for that? I am using a lens and have yet to make the jump to 4k, but if there's light spill I'm gonna just keep my lens. I have a black velvet border around my screen and I can still on the odd occasion see some image spilling over and it just irks me.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

blastermaster said:


> When you aren't using a lens and have a 2.35:1 screen and zoom, do you get light spill on the top and bottom of the screen or does the projector somehow account for that? I am using a lens and have yet to make the jump to 4k, but if there's light spill I'm gonna just keep my lens. I have a black velvet border around my screen and I can still on the odd occasion see some image spilling over and it just irks me.


You will get light spill, but if it is 'black' and the wall behind the screen is black (velvet is good), it will absorb the overspill so it won't be visible in most cases. In bright rooms with some lights, they will overpower the black bars and they won't be visible then either, but that will compromise all black parts of the image unless it is a special screen (React for example).

Menus might be a bit of a pain to navigate as will those pseudo IMAX films such as The Dark Knight that go from 2.35 to 16:9 and back again.

One way round that is to use an eternal scaler or HTPC than can crop the image etc so that nothing above and below the 2.35 image is shown or visible. You can also use that to keep menus within the screen too.

If you don't have a scaler/HTPC you can either keep the lens which guarantees nothing above or below, or look into the cost of one, offset by selling the lens.

You're now making me think more about keeping the lens for just the reason you mention..

Gary


----------



## blastermaster

> You're now making me think more about keeping the lens for just the reason you mention..
> 
> Gary


It sounds like you've got a good lens. I started with the HTB lens, but quickly found it not good enough for my needs. I jumped on a Panamorph UH480 and it's been fantastic. Personally, I'd try using the zoom method with the current projector you've got to see if you're ok with it before selling it. If I were to ever sell mine (which I don't plan to) I suppose I'd use my HTPC. As it is, I still use my lens with a custom PC resolution for gaming. It's pretty epic (nope, not grown up yet) playing a game in scope on a 138" curved screen. 

Anyway, that's just my 0.02. If you don't want to use a lens or feel it's not necessary, I would probably use the money gained from selling it and investing in a scaler or HTPC.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

You're not helping 

I do some gaming to, but never on the projector... Yet lol.

A friend of mine over on the UK forum uses a scaler and has recently upgraded to a JVC with e-shift, and now he's selling his ISCO II lens. I trust his judgement and was going to follow suit, but now I'm sitting on the fence again.

Gary


----------



## blastermaster

Well, here's something else to think about. Anamorphic encoded Blu Rays and UHD Blu Rays aren't gonna happen, so again, you'll be losing those pixels if you ditch your lens. Even if the difference is negligible, I like the fact that I'm getting the pixels that I've paid for lol (for UHD that would be in the millions...haven't done the math on it). Also, there really is a cool factor to having a lens. Just playing devil's advocate. 

I haven't seen 4K and many that have have sold their lenses, so there's something to that I suppose.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Zooming with 4k loses around 2 million pixels - a whole Blu Rays worth!

I've seen the Sony 300 (350 in the USA) zoomed for scope, and sat 2.5m from a 3m wide screen and it looked fine. That was one of the reasons I was thinking I wouldn't need a lens, but there are still advantages to it.

Gary


----------



## blastermaster

> I've seen the Sony 300 (350 in the USA) zoomed for scope, and sat 2.5m from a 3m wide screen and it looked *fine*.


You know what "fine" stands for? Freaked out, insecure, neurotic and emotional. I'm sure you'll be fine if you sell your lens.


----------



## coolgeek

blastermaster said:


> Well, here's something else to think about. Anamorphic encoded Blu Rays and UHD Blu Rays aren't gonna happen, so again, you'll be losing those pixels if you ditch your lens. Even if the difference is negligible, I like the fact that I'm getting the pixels that I've paid for lol (for UHD that would be in the millions...haven't done the math on it). Also, there really is a cool factor to having a lens. Just playing devil's advocate.
> 
> I haven't seen 4K and many that have have sold their lenses, so there's something to that I suppose.





Gary Lightfoot said:


> Zooming with 4k loses around 2 million pixels - a whole Blu Rays worth!
> 
> I've seen the Sony 300 (350 in the USA) zoomed for scope, and sat 2.5m from a 3m wide screen and it looked fine. That was one of the reasons I was thinking I wouldn't need a lens, but there are still advantages to it.
> 
> Gary


Look at it this way, losing 2 million pixels (glass half empty), or gaining 4 million pixels vs regular HD (glass tripple full).... 

The reasons I was told to get an anamorphic lens was:

1. You get a little more light (from HD projectors which may not have enough to begin with)
2. You get higher pixel density (remember, at FULL HD, that's a total of 2 million pixels)

With a 4K projector

1. Done and Done... you get more light than a full hd with a lens!
2. You still get 6-8 million pixels, that's at least 3 times the density of a regular with a lens. 
3. Introduce a lens and you may not get an improvement if the lens isn't of good quality to begin with, you may actually loses quality.. 
4. With the budget of a very high quality lens, you might be able to use that money to upgrade to better sound system instead... (For those of us who are on a budget that is).

At the end, better try out the 4K projector first, see if one is satisfied, before spending the money. If not satisfied, then one can always buy a lens... (my money's on the lens isn't going to be giving much help either).


----------



## blastermaster

> At the end, better try out the 4K projector first, see if one is satisfied, before spending the money. If not satisfied, then one can always buy a lens... (my money's on the lens isn't going to be giving much help either).


Totally agreed. But if one already has the lens, it may not be a bad idea to test it out on a 4K projector before selling it is all I'm saying. One thing that is nice (and bringing it back to the topic at hand) is that the XD screen works great with 4k. Fortunately that's one thing I won't have to upgrade for a while (dang you, Dolby Atmos!).


----------



## coolgeek

blastermaster said:


> Totally agreed. But if one already has the lens, it may not be a bad idea to test it out on a 4K projector before selling it is all I'm saying. One thing that is nice (and bringing it back to the topic at hand) is that the XD screen works great with 4k. Fortunately that's one thing I won't have to upgrade for a while (dang you, Dolby Atmos!).


XD Rocks! I am glad I got it.

When you do get a chance to use the Sony 4K with your lens, please post your review.. I would love to hear your thought on it.

Atmos is going to be awesome.. i have my HT design incorporate the ceiling speakers and now I just have to get the speakers and wait for the next generation receivers.

The only disappointing thing for me is they are not going to have 4K 3D blu ray in going forward..


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I've got the XD material in it's tube and ready to go when I eventually get to start on my theatre, though I think I may have have to upgrade to the UF material because my front row is going to be pretty close. Could be a win win situation 

Gary


----------



## coolgeek

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I've got the XD material in it's tube and ready to go when I eventually get to start on my theatre, though I think I may have have to upgrade to the UF material because my front row is going to be pretty close. Could be a win win situation
> 
> Gary


Are you getting the 4K projector? If so, you might also want to hold off on getting the new material and test it out first.. i could sit pretty close with my sony projector... right now, i am sitting 10 feet from a 10 wide screen. I can walk right up to 7 feet or so and no issues... don't notice any weave or anything like that with the 4k proj.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Thanks for the feedback - my seating will be around 7.5 feet from the XD screen (only 8.5 feet wide 2.35) and I am hoping to have either a 4k Sony or e-shift JVC. I might be able to do some testing with a dealer who lives near me and currently has both pjs, so I might be able to take the material there and try it if he still has them when I'm in a position to build. 

His set up has a seating distance ratio of 1.95 x the screen height which is closer than usual (THX optimal is 2.4xSH which is where you sit), but still not as close as Sony recommend for 4k which is 1.5 x SH. I'll do some testing to determine the ideal front row position before I place the seats or build the riser.

I think that sometimes the weave may be more visible in brighter set ups, so I'll aim for around 12fL or so. I may even try and see when the weave is visible and dim the image with filters (or iris) if possible to try and find a point where it's no longer or rarely visible, provided it doesn't drop the image brightness too much.

Gary


----------



## coolgeek

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Thanks for the feedback - my seating will be around 7.5 feet from the XD screen (only 8.5 feet wide 2.35) and I am hoping to have either a 4k Sony or e-shift JVC. I might be able to do some testing with a dealer who lives near me and currently has both pjs, so I might be able to take the material there and try it if he still has them when I'm in a position to build.
> 
> His set up has a seating distance ratio of 1.95 x the screen height which is closer than usual (THX optimal is 2.4xSH which is where you sit), but still not as close as Sony recommend for 4k which is 1.5 x SH. I'll do some testing to determine the ideal front row position before I place the seats or build the riser.
> 
> I think that sometimes the weave may be more visible in brighter set ups, so I'll aim for around 12fL or so. I may even try and see when the weave is visible and dim the image with filters (or iris) if possible to try and find a point where it's no longer or rarely visible, provided it doesn't drop the image brightness too much.
> 
> Gary


Yes, definitely try out both projectors before you buy. I have seen the JVC e-shift and not very impressed with it. Perhaps you'll have a different experience. I find that when e-shift is engaged, the image becomes softer... it's smoother, but then softer.. basically, if you interlace two big pixels together you get a bigger smoother pixel, but it's still BIG... with native 4K pixels, the individual pixels in Sony's projectors are very small and they look sharp.

I think this will make a difference in how close you can sit to the screen.

When I was watching 3D, such as gravity, i could easily sit about 6-7 feet away from my 10 foot wide screen. It'll look sharp, and lifelike...


----------



## blastermaster

> Thanks for the feedback - my seating will be around 7.5 feet from the XD screen (only 8.5 feet wide 2.35) and I am hoping to have either a 4k Sony or e-shift JVC. I might be able to do some testing with a dealer who lives near me and currently has both pjs, so I might be able to take the material there and try it if he still has them when I'm in a position to build.


Hmm, the XD material is great but I would say its only limitation is seating distance. From 7.5 feet the weave may prove to be distracting. I'd test a sample first before you decide to build your screen - you may wish you had gone with the UF. I'm not meaning to rain on your parade, I really want to spare people from headaches where possible and I know I've been saved loads from other people helping me on this website's forums.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I already knew the XD material was often said to have a limitation of around 8 to 10 feet before the weave was visible, but I picked up the material cheap from a previous user. At the time I was going to be sitting a little further back with 1080, now that 4k seems more likely, I can sit closer, but the screen weave is now more likely to be visible.

I'll wait and see how it looks and then make a decision. The UF does seem a better candidate though - the screen size means image brightness won't be a problem with the lower gain either.

Gary


----------



## coolgeek

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I already knew the XD material was often said to have a limitation of around 8 to 10 feet before the weave was visible, but I picked up the material cheap from a previous user. At the time I was going to be sitting a little further back with 1080, now that 4k seems more likely, I can sit closer, but the screen weave is now more likely to be visible.
> 
> I'll wait and see how it looks and then make a decision. The UF does seem a better candidate though - the screen size means image brightness won't be a problem with the lower gain either.
> 
> Gary


The XD has plenty of light for my 10 feet wide XD screen using the Sony 500ES projector. If you're going to get the same projector, and if your screen is smaller, the UF might be a real contender. It's 20% less light, but could also add 20% more black levels... and if you're getting the same amount of light (with a smaller screen), then why not get the extra black levels?

Best to get both materials to test out first.. but if you purchase the premier frame, then you can theoretically get both materials as it's not that expensive just the 'fabric'... the frame is the one that's expensive... you can always switch them in/out... i am thinking of getting the UF screen fabric as well (full size) that fits into my screen and see what i like better.. The sample sizes are actually too small to make good comparisons...

ps: I might change my mind about brightness as the projector's bulb gets used more though.. right not, it's brand spanking new.. maybe the XD material will allow me to use the lamp for longer...


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I might put an ND2 filter on my pj to get the black and reflectance levels down if it's to bright, as I like a more cinematic look of around 12fL. 14fL is the DCI level, but I'll experiment to see what works best with the XD and what I like the look of before getting a sample of the UF. At least with the UF at my screen size, I don't think reflectance levels will be a problem.

Gary


----------



## Thundersnow

I tried the sample pieces of UF and XD today. I couldn't see the weave of the XD at 8.5 ft my minimum seating distance. So I was thinking of going with the XD material although, after reading some post hear I am wondering if a larger screen will make the weave noticeable. As my sample pieces are only 1ft x 1ft.
What do you guys think?


----------



## lovingdvd

Guys - what is the difference between the Center Stage XD and the Enlightor-Bright screen? Anyone know? They sound like they are very similar, both have a similar 1.0 gain and the texture in the picture of the XD looks very similar to the texture on a sample piece of the Enlightor-Bright that I have.

I'm planning a 140"w 2.35 screen and will sit 12.5' from it. I've tested out a small sample of the Enlightor-Bright and it passed my tests on my current 1080p projector (looked good). But I'm concerned that with the smaller pixels of the new 4K projector I'll be getting that the image may lose some sharpness or that the texture may become more obvious with 4K pixels hitting it.

Anyone out there using Enlightor-Bright? I can't seem to find anyone on AVS that is using it, yet at the moment it is my leading choice.

Likewise I'd love to hear from others that are using the Center Stage XD with 4K from the Sony 350/600/1100 and how well the texture does with its 4K pixels. Please let me know when responding what size screen width you have, whether 2.35 or 16:9, and what your seating distance is. Thanks!


----------



## coolgeek

lovingdvd said:


> Guys - what is the difference between the Center Stage XD and the Enlightor-Bright screen? Anyone know? They sound like they are very similar, both have a similar 1.0 gain and the texture in the picture of the XD looks very similar to the texture on a sample piece of the Enlightor-Bright that I have.
> 
> I'm planning a 140"w 2.35 screen and will sit 12.5' from it. I've tested out a small sample of the Enlightor-Bright and it passed my tests on my current 1080p projector (looked good). But I'm concerned that with the smaller pixels of the new 4K projector I'll be getting that the image may lose some sharpness or that the texture may become more obvious with 4K pixels hitting it.
> 
> Anyone out there using Enlightor-Bright? I can't seem to find anyone on AVS that is using it, yet at the moment it is my leading choice.
> 
> Likewise I'd love to hear from others that are using the Center Stage XD with 4K from the Sony 350/600/1100 and how well the texture does with its 4K pixels. Please let me know when responding what size screen width you have, whether 2.35 or 16:9, and what your seating distance is. Thanks!


I am using exactly the CenterStage XD with the Sony 600ES... picture is silky smooth even at 7 feet away.. you can't tell a difference between it and a smooth wall... My screen is 10 feet wide and I sit about 10 feet away.


----------



## lovingdvd

deromax said:


> Unless something changed, both side are useable as the projection surface but the side inside the roll is the one that was inspected for blemishes before shipping.


Just to clarify which side we are talking about - if an ant was to climb into the middle of the shipping tube and into the very middle center hole for the rolled up screen material, the side that the ant was touching is the inspected side, yes?



Gary Lightfoot said:


> Some velvets pass the 'blow test' for checking for AT potential, so don't rule them out. Speaker grill cloth works well because the image isn't projected onto it and your attention is usually on the screen which is brighter so more visible. It just might look a bit different to any surrounding velvet like that on the frame, if thats going to be an issue.
> 
> Gary


Yes I'm a little concerned about this. I'm considering the TAM masking system (electric). If I understand correctly, the very thin black cloth that's used for the backing of the AT screens is the same cloth used for the masking panels, with a velvet border on the inside edges for light spill. Is my understanding correct?

I am very sensitive to reflections and things that don't look black which should. For example, my entire screen wall will be in a velvet that will match with the screen. When the masking is set at 16:9 and there is some ambient light in the room those masking panels will likely look gray in comparison and stick out some because of it. Likewise when all lights are out and there is a bright 16:9 scene creating some ambient light in the room, I'm not sure how satisfying it will be with the panels showing some of this light (whereas if they were velvet I'd have no concern).

I recently bought a velvet call Devore velvet from the UK. It is very light and relatively accoustically transparent, at least as velvet goes. I measured it and it only created about a 1-2 dB loss and pretty evenly across all/most frequencies. I wonder if it would be possible for Seymour to manufacture the TAM masking with this material. Tho I'm not sure it would be worth the 1-2 dB loss which is fairly significant especially considering there is dB loss from the XD and the black backing already...


----------



## lovingdvd

coolgeek said:


> I thought I might share this pic here for ppl looking to buy the centerstage XD and worry whether it can support a 4K image...
> 
> This is a 16:9 curved, 10 feet wide Centerstage XD with the Sony 4K projector
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Preliminary viewing of the Sony 500ES 4K projector on the Centerstage XD screen.
> 
> My initial reaction? Absolutely stunning pictures.
> 
> On HD projectors the XD material's weave is visible up to 10 feet or so, but it seems that when you use the 4K projector you can go much closer without seeing the weave.. I do not yet know how to explain this. I mean, a weave is a weave right? But my gut feeling is that the 'weave' we see may be a combination of 'pixel size + weave' rather than just 'weave'.
> 
> With the 4K projector, the image is silky smooth, baby bottom smooth... (enter your own analogy here).
> 
> When watching 3D, i can even walk up to my 10 feet wide screen and look right through it, like looking out a window. 3D has never been better (not even on the IMAX), as this projector on a 10 feet wide 0.9 gain screen is brighter than the image on the IMAX and with much better contrast and black levels. Space looks like absolute black... stars looks like stars...
> 
> Anyways, judge for yourself.. the image is taken about 9 feet away.. zoom in and see if you can see any weave. BTW: this pic was taken by my Samsung phone... the actual image is way smoother and much better colors...
> 
> BTW: This is an upscaled 1080p music video from a DTS demo track. Imagine what a 'real' 4K source would be like.


Thanks Coolgeek. Indeed you are the coolest - this is exactly the type of information I've been searching for over the past several days.

I did some preliminary testing with a 8.5" x 11" sample of XD with a 1080p projector and that went well. But I've been concerned that when I get my 4K projector the 1/4 sized pixels (compared to 1080p) could somehow make the weave more pronounced and noticeable, or otherwise cause some perceived resolution loss.

Its really reassuring to read that in fact you are reporting the exact opposite - that once you went to 4K the weave texture actually became LESS noticeable and you could move up even closer if you wanted to without seeing it. I'm planning to sit at about 12.5' from a 140" wide 2.40 of the XD with a 4K projector so glad to hear this. I'll be testing it soon on a VW1100 with a 2x2' sample I purchased to try and confirm this material is a good fit.

On a related note - I know you feel the weave is less noticeable with 4K - but how about the pixel structure and sharpness/clarity of the image. Do you feel that the weave/texture is completely hidden and that the screen in no way is sacrificing any sharpness or adding any artificial looking sharpness?


----------



## RapalloAV

lovingdvd said:


> I recently bought a velvet call Devore velvet from the UK. It is very light and relatively accoustically transparent, at least as velvet goes. I measured it and it only created about a 1-2 dB loss and pretty evenly across all/most frequencies. I wonder if it would be possible for Seymour to manufacture the TAM masking with this material. Tho I'm not sure it would be worth the 1-2 dB loss which is fairly significant especially considering there is dB loss from the XD and the black backing already...


Ive bought Devore for my motorised black side masking also from the UK as there is nothing like it in NZ. We only have the really heavy thick stuff with the shiny backing which I use on my top and bottom masking. The Devore is fantastic and black (no shine) and real easy to blow through, hold it up to the light and you can see through it. This product is the only way you will have that real plush BLACK look and little loss in sound. I too wouldn't want the speaker type cloth they use, its not plush black like velvet.


----------



## lovingdvd

RapalloAV said:


> Ive bought Devore for my motorised black side masking also from the UK as there is nothing like it in NZ. We only have the really heavy thick stuff with the shiny backing which I use on my top and bottom masking. The Devore is fantastic and black (no shine) and real easy to blow through, hold it up to the light and you can see through it. This product is the only way you will have that real plush BLACK look and little loss in sound. I too wouldn't want the speaker type cloth they use, its not plush black like velvet.


Yes that matches my impressions as well. Although it is not quite as ink black as a thicker velvet I used for my ceiling (close though), it actually gives off less of a sheen than the heavier velvet - making it perfect actually.

I know you said "little loss in sound" - however I did measure it at about 1 - 2 dB (varied across the range). In some ways that doesn't seem like much, but in others it does (when you consider how many amps it takes to add 3 dB in SPL it does seem like a lot). Then again I am not looking to blast my system at or beyond reference levels so I have some headway.

I will need to check with Chris to see if they may be able to construct the TAM masking with this velvet material that I'd supply them with. I would think they could test it pretty easily to see if it would be compatible with their mechanics of how the system works and to make sure its properties would support it - for example it would need to "cooperate" with the rollers etc. But I'm thinking they could check test it pretty easily. I bet this would look super sexy with the AT panels being dark velvet while not introducing acoustical issues - could be another option they could make available in their line if it worked out.


----------



## RapalloAV

lovingdvd said:


> Yes that matches my impressions as well. Although it is not quite as ink black as a thicker velvet I used for my ceiling (close though), it actually gives off less of a sheen than the heavier velvet - making it perfect actually.
> 
> I know you said "little loss in sound" - however I did measure it at about 1 - 2 dB (varied across the range). In some ways that doesn't seem like much, but in others it does (when you consider how many amps it takes to add 3 dB in SPL it does seem like a lot). Then again I am not looking to blast my system at or beyond reference levels so I have some headway.
> 
> I will need to check with Chris to see if they may be able to construct the TAM masking with this velvet material that I'd supply them with. I would think they could test it pretty easily to see if it would be compatible with their mechanics of how the system works and to make sure its properties would support it - for example it would need to "cooperate" with the rollers etc. But I'm thinking they could check test it pretty easily. I bet this would look super sexy with the AT panels being dark velvet while not introducing acoustical issues - could be another option they could make available in their line if it worked out.


I still would rather less 1/2 dbs than have grey masking. 
I too noticed that its actually a blacker black than the thick expensive velvet, less shine, and the thick stuff is fantastic.


BTW its not Chris who sells the electric masking, TAM are a UK company. Hope you have a huge wallet as it costs an arm and a leg, plus a bit more along the way.... In other words you need to be super rich!


----------



## lovingdvd

RapalloAV said:


> lovingdvd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that matches my impressions as well. Although it is not quite as ink black as a thicker velvet I used for my ceiling (close though), it actually gives off less of a sheen than the heavier velvet - making it perfect actually.
> 
> I know you said "little loss in sound" - however I did measure it at about 1 - 2 dB (varied across the range). In some ways that doesn't seem like much, but in others it does (when you consider how many amps it takes to add 3 dB in SPL it does seem like a lot). Then again I am not looking to blast my system at or beyond reference levels so I have some headway.
> 
> I will need to check with Chris to see if they may be able to construct the TAM masking with this velvet material that I'd supply them with. I would think they could test it pretty easily to see if it would be compatible with their mechanics of how the system works and to make sure its properties would support it - for example it would need to "cooperate" with the rollers etc. But I'm thinking they could check test it pretty easily. I bet this would look super sexy with the AT panels being dark velvet while not introducing acoustical issues - could be another option they could make available in their line if it worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> I still would rather less 1/2 dbs than have grey masking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too noticed that its actually a blacker black than the thick expensive velvet, less shine, and the thick stuff is fantastic.
> 
> 
> BTW its not Chris who sells the electric masking, TAM are a UK company. Hope you have a huge wallet as it costs an arm and a leg, plus a bit more along the way.... In other words you need to be super rich!
Click to expand...

As mentioned it's not 0.5 dB but more like 1.5 - 2 dB. I measured this with REW and pretty confident in the results. 

My understanding is that Seymour makes the TAM here in the us now thru a joint venture. see http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

lovingdvd said:


> Just to clarify which side we are talking about - if an ant was to climb into the middle of the shipping tube and into the very middle center hole for the rolled up screen material, the side that the ant was touching is the inspected side, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm a little concerned about this. I'm considering the TAM masking system (electric). If I understand correctly, the very thin black cloth that's used for the backing of the AT screens is the same cloth used for the masking panels, with a velvet border on the inside edges for light spill. Is my understanding correct?
> 
> I am very sensitive to reflections and things that don't look black which should. For example, my entire screen wall will be in a velvet that will match with the screen. When the masking is set at 16:9 and there is some ambient light in the room those masking panels will likely look gray in comparison and stick out some because of it. Likewise when all lights are out and there is a bright 16:9 scene creating some ambient light in the room, I'm not sure how satisfying it will be with the panels showing some of this light (whereas if they were velvet I'd have no concern).
> 
> I recently bought a velvet call Devore velvet from the UK. It is very light and relatively accoustically transparent, at least as velvet goes. I measured it and it only created about a 1-2 dB loss and pretty evenly across all/most frequencies. I wonder if it would be possible for Seymour to manufacture the TAM masking with this material. Tho I'm not sure it would be worth the 1-2 dB loss which is fairly significant especially considering there is dB loss from the XD and the black backing already...


Hi,

I'n not familiar with the TAM, but judging by other peoples comments, it seems the Devore is possibly the best material for what you want. Fidelio is said to be marginally blacker, but I can't remember how good it is for frequency attenuation. 

Do you need the black backing behind the screen? If you have white/bright or reflective items like speakers behind the screen, then you may need it, but if the speakers are black you could possibly do away with the backing layer.

Gary


----------



## blastermaster

> Do you need the black backing behind the screen? If you have white/bright or reflective items like speakers behind the screen, then you may need it, but if the speakers are black you could possibly do away with the backing layer.
> 
> Gary


If it helps, I have about a 2 foot space between my screen and the back wall. I simply put black cloth against the back wall and I don't see anything while watching movies. When I replaced my flourescent ballasts with recessed lighting, I installed two lights behind the screen. So, when the lights are on you can see the speakers behind the screen but that's kinda the effect I was going for. I think if you go with a dark paint and have black speakers you should be fine.


----------



## coolgeek

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks Coolgeek. Indeed you are the coolest - this is exactly the type of information I've been searching for over the past several days.
> 
> I did some preliminary testing with a 8.5" x 11" sample of XD with a 1080p projector and that went well. But I've been concerned that when I get my 4K projector the 1/4 sized pixels (compared to 1080p) could somehow make the weave more pronounced and noticeable, or otherwise cause some perceived resolution loss.
> 
> Its really reassuring to read that in fact you are reporting the exact opposite - that once you went to 4K the weave texture actually became LESS noticeable and you could move up even closer if you wanted to without seeing it. I'm planning to sit at about 12.5' from a 140" wide 2.40 of the XD with a 4K projector so glad to hear this. I'll be testing it soon on a VW1100 with a 2x2' sample I purchased to try and confirm this material is a good fit.
> 
> On a related note - I know you feel the weave is less noticeable with 4K - but how about the pixel structure and sharpness/clarity of the image. Do you feel that the weave/texture is completely hidden and that the screen in no way is sacrificing any sharpness or adding any artificial looking sharpness?


The pixel structure is as sharp as can be (at least to me, unless 8K comes along)... even a regular Blu-Ray looks 'like' 4K to me.. i can't tell the difference (because I haven't seen a real 4K video yet)... but it was so much better than HD images, I assume real 4K will be better, but maybe not by much... 

As for the weave, can't see anything.. it's baby smooth even from 7 feet away to me... you might want to try it out yourself first...


----------



## RapalloAV

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'n not familiar with the TAM, but judging by other peoples comments, it seems the Devore is possibly the best material for what you want. Fidelio is said to be marginally blacker, but I can't remember how good it is for frequency attenuation.
> 
> Do you need the black backing behind the screen? If you have white/bright or reflective items like speakers behind the screen, then you may need it, but if the speakers are black you could possibly do away with the backing layer.
> 
> Gary


You cant use Fidelio as acoustic masking, its just not as transparent as Devore. Devore from the UK is a fantastic product and very BLACK!


----------



## Maison

On the Premier fixed screen, how much room or clearance do I need to install onto the wall bracket? Just doing some prelim planning.


----------



## chriscmore

RapalloAV said:


> I still would rather less 1/2 dbs than have grey masking.
> I too noticed that its actually a blacker black than the thick expensive velvet, less shine, and the thick stuff is fantastic.
> 
> 
> BTW its not Chris who sells the electric masking, TAM are a UK company. Hope you have a huge wallet as it costs an arm and a leg, plus a bit more along the way.... In other words you need to be super rich!


Hi Murray -

The only product we don't manufacture here in the US for the North American market are the curved parts of the RF-based VistaCurve, and the Absolute. The TAM is made here, sometimes pre-assembled for those that can carry such a large product into their room. It's still spendy, as the crate alone takes two days to build.

The TAM masking material is the blackest AT material I know of, but we're always happy to play with new materials. The samples of thin, greyish, super-sheer material is what we use as the optional secondary black backing layer behind the EN4K. It doesn't have to do much, so if it's only 90% black it's fine. It's primary job is to be quite-black and be thin. It's never seen.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Maison said:


> On the Premier fixed screen, how much room or clearance do I need to install onto the wall bracket? Just doing some prelim planning.


I'd recommend 1/2" minimum, 3/4" is more comfortable to hook onto the cleats. If you need to do a zero-clearance or aperture mount, then I'd recommend you have us install threaded inserts into the sides so you can mount it from within the studs.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## RapalloAV

chriscmore said:


> Hi Murray -
> 
> The only product we don't manufacture here in the US for the North American market are the curved parts of the RF-based VistaCurve, and the Absolute. The TAM is made here, sometimes pre-assembled for those that can carry such a large product into their room. It's still spendy, as the crate alone takes two days to build.
> 
> The TAM masking material is the blackest AT material I know of, but we're always happy to play with new materials. The samples of thin, greyish, super-sheer material is what we use as the optional secondary black backing layer behind the EN4K. It doesn't have to do much, so if it's only 90% black it's fine. It's primary job is to be quite-black and be thin. It's never seen.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris



Chris I confused....
When I came to you regarding the curved motorised masking screen you told me your didn't do it and I needed to get it from the UK, which I did.
If you do make the motorised masking, you then on sell it to the UK, is that correct, as you don't offer it for sale in the USA?


----------



## chriscmore

RapalloAV said:


> Chris I confused....
> When I came to you regarding the curved motorised masking screen you told me your didn't do it and I needed to get it from the UK, which I did.
> If you do make the motorised masking, you then on sell it to the UK, is that correct, as you don't offer it for sale in the USA?


Curved motorized masking is called the Absolute, only made in UK. Everything else is we make here in the US for only the North American market. Markets outside NA are serviced by the folks in UK, with them importing from us a few product lines (retractable, MFR, Series-2/3, Ambient-Visionaire).

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Maison

chriscmore said:


> I'd recommend 1/2" minimum, 3/4" is more comfortable to hook onto the cleats. If you need to do a zero-clearance or aperture mount, then I'd recommend you have us install threaded inserts into the sides so you can mount it from within the studs.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hi Chris,

The side inserts wouldn't be necessary, I was just curious more than anything else on the clearance. I requested a few samples from you via email, but more than likely going with the UF with the black backing on H110 Premier Fixed screen. I believe the Sony 350ES should be able project onto that without any issues in low lamp even on a .8 gain.

One more question - For the CW masking, it comes in a set of four to be attached magnetically. So two horizontal pieces each for the top and bottom? Or? Please explain briefly. 

So I did a little reading/research here and there last night on you/your company. I'm very very impressed!! Much respect and looking forward to trying out the samples and placing an order.

Thanks!!


----------



## chriscmore

Maison said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> The side inserts wouldn't be necessary, I was just curious more than anything else on the clearance. I requested a few samples from you via email, but more than likely going with the UF with the black backing on H110 Premier Fixed screen. I believe the Sony 350ES should be able project onto that without any issues in low lamp even on a .8 gain.
> 
> One more question - For the CW masking, it comes in a set of four to be attached magnetically. So two horizontal pieces each for the top and bottom? Or? Please explain briefly.
> 
> So I did a little reading/research here and there last night on you/your company. I'm very very impressed!! Much respect and looking forward to trying out the samples and placing an order.
> 
> Thanks!!


Correct the CW (top/bottom) masks come split into fourths to allow for easier handling. They're labeled for each corner.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I just stumbled across this thread as I had no idea that you could buy an AT roll down electric screen, I had always thought they had to be fixed frame. I would want a 2.35:1 version, the XD model should suit IIUIC (11-12' viewing distance, 10' wide screen, 19' throw distance from projector). 

I currently have a Beamax 1.5 gain non AT screen, which I understand is closer to 1.3 gain in practice, so I wonder if I would much worse off in reflectance terms? I'm using a JVC X500 and can achieve 14fL with the aperture at -6 (low lamp @200 hours) so I have a bit in hand to increase the light output without having to use high lamp.

My TV is on an electric lift so it goes up behind my screen, so my concern is whether I would be able to 'see' the TV through the screen or if it would light up in any way? Also there is a white window cill behind, so would this cause a problem?



Gary Lightfoot said:


> Ok. The reason I asked was because a few people who have gone from 1080 with a lens to 4k have now sold the lens (and some have kept them of course). One guy I know with an ISCO II who now has a JVC X500 (e-shift) has the lens up for sale as he couldn't see any advantage when using it after comparing.
> 
> So now I'm torn between selling mine or keeping it, as I'll be upgrading to a JVC with e-shift or 4K pj in the hopefully not too distant future.
> 
> Gary


Seem to be having trouble selling mine, so maybe they aren't as desirable as I'd thought...


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Cover the tv in some black material or get the screen with black backing built in. I think that should stop anything reflecting back and being visible behind the screen.

If you can't sell the lens, maybe you should carry on using it 

I may end up keeping mine after all...

Gary


----------



## dan1210

@chriscmore, hi chris, i will be on holiday in florida around november later this year and was hoping to pick up one of your at fixed frame screens to bring back to the uk.
a couple of questions, the screen im after would be 16x9 approx 3 meters wide.
how large would the packaging be? 
how far in advance would you need the order to reach me at ft myers florida in late november?

kind regards Daniel.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Cover the tv in some black material or get the screen with black backing built in. I think that should stop anything reflecting back and being visible behind the screen.
> 
> If you can't sell the lens, maybe you should carry on using it
> 
> I may end up keeping mine after all...
> 
> Gary


Doesn't the black backing further reduce the AT properties though?

I'm not using the lens at all now...little point as there is no gain in my room, slightly reduced contrast when using it and the overspill isn't an issue (completely invisible against my dark brown screen wall). I'm sure it'll go in the end, just might have to be less than I'd hoped...


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Yes, the black backing will have some effect, like leaving the speaker grills on since it probably has similar properties. If you place it over the tv/behind the screen but not in front of the speakers, that would be better of course. You can probably eq out any attenuation to make it a non issue though.

Gary


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Yes by that point I will likely be using Dirac via a minidsp '88, so that can eq to allow for the backing material if need be.


----------



## chriscmore

dan1210 said:


> @chriscmore, hi chris, i will be on holiday in florida around november later this year and was hoping to pick up one of your at fixed frame screens to bring back to the uk.
> a couple of questions, the screen im after would be 16x9 approx 3 meters wide.
> how large would the packaging be?
> how far in advance would you need the order to reach me at ft myers florida in late november?
> 
> kind regards Daniel.


Assuming if you're getting the Precision or Premier frame that you'd have the top/bottom frame pieces spliced, the H115 or H120 size would fit in a box that measures 92" x 8" x 9" and weigh about 50-60lbs. With enough order time we can get a custom box that could be shrunk down to about 72-74" long, and if the 50lb+ checked baggage fee is an issue then that would vote for sticking to the 115"w, Precision frame, which should weigh about 45lb packed.

Normally I'd say give a couple weeks for production and shipping to Florida, but if you want the custom box give us another week.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

This weekend the Enlightor-4K screen was shown with a top-end system from Seaton Sound and Ken Whitcomb's calibration talents on a Sony VPL-VW1100ES 4K projector at the AXPONA show in Chicago. The screen was perhaps on the smaller side for such a massive room, but in order to keep the FtL up we went with a 115"w (132"d) 16:9 size. Kudos to Mark Seaton for embarking on such an ambitious setup and properly showing off the capabilities of home theater for the consumer. Not many dealer showrooms exhibit as many best practices, and this was in a Westin.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1163005-official-seaton-sound-speaker-thread-34.html#post33862978

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## BrolicBeast

My 12ft 16:9 currrvvvved Seymour Centerstage XD screen has arrived. Once my baffle wall is completed in a couple of weeks, this bad boy is going UP!!!! 
#TeamIMAX


----------



## pgwalsh

BrolicBeast said:


> My 12ft 16:9 currrvvvved Seymour Centerstage XD screen has arrived. Once my baffle wall is completed in a couple of weeks, this bad boy is going UP!!!!
> #TeamIMAX


Looking good. What's the room size?


----------



## BrolicBeast

pgwalsh said:


> Looking good. What's the room size?


Thanks! The room is 16'8" x 28'6". Seating positions are at 13'6" and 21' from the screen.


----------



## pgwalsh

BrolicBeast said:


> Thanks! The room is 16'8" x 28'6". Seating positions are at 13'6" and 21' from the screen.


We have similar widths, but I wish my room were that deep. That's going to be an awesome room, do you have a build thread?


----------



## BrolicBeast

pgwalsh said:


> We have similar widths, but I wish my room were that deep. That's going to be an awesome room, do you have a build thread?


Yes sir! It looks like my signature is broken, but the build thread can be found here. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/1498937-beast-unleashed.html


----------



## DavidK442

BrolicBeast said:


> My 12ft 16:9 currrvvvved Seymour Centerstage XD screen has arrived. Once my baffle wall is completed in a couple of weeks, this bad boy is going UP!!!!
> #TeamIMAX


Holy catfish! Awesome.


----------



## lovingdvd

BrolicBeast said:


> Yes sir! It looks like my signature is broken, but the build thread can be found here. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/1498937-beast-unleashed.html


Awesome! What frame are you going to use for the screen, and are you doing any masking?


----------



## BrolicBeast

DavidK442 said:


> Holy catfish! Awesome.


Leapin' Lizards! lol...Thank you kindly, sir!



lovingdvd said:


> Awesome! What frame are you going to use for the screen, and are you doing any masking?


I got the Premier Frame--nice velvet all around. Definitely using masking...those panels leaning against the corners are the curved masking panels (they each come in halves) that will magnetically attach to the screen at the top and bottom of the screen to frame 2:35 content. Best of both worlds--this is as wide and as high as my room can handle, so it's not CIW or CIH--it's CIE (Constant Image Excellence!)


----------



## chriscmore

With the masking panels resting like that, they almost look curved enough to fit your curved frame. Oh wait, we did that on purpose. But don't stack your lumber that way. 

Gonna be epic.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## BrolicBeast

chriscmore said:


> With the masking panels resting like that, they almost look curved enough to fit your curved frame. Oh wait, we did that on purpose. But don't stack your lumber that way.
> 
> Gonna be epic.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


LOL, never! If I stacked my wood like that, the wood would end up curved enough to serve as a backup frame to this curved beauty of a screen. 

The baffle wall gets built in a couple of weeks, then: screen installation! I'm grinning already! 

The installation shall most certainly be recorded and placed in the next episode of the build series.


----------



## StevenC56

Anybody found a universal remote that will learn the RF signals from a Seymour AV Center Stage retractable RF remote?


----------



## lovingdvd

Is there something about that screen that leads to you asking this? I ask because I'm a little surprised - would thought any learning remote would do...?


----------



## Ellebob

Learning remotes learn IR not RF, I don't know of anything that learns RF. He would be better to get the IR, RS-232 or low voltage trigger option for the screen, whatever would work best for his situation.


----------



## StevenC56

I've had my wonderful screen for over 4 years now. I didn't get the IR option unfortunately, and I doubt retrofitting it is an option.


----------



## Ellebob

Can you do a trigger? I'd give Seymour a call and see if there is a retrofit option that might work for your siutation.


----------



## Oilmanmojo

Just got my "new" SeymourAV with EN4k up (sorry, not centerstage) up and have been blown away with the performance. I had picked up their Demo MFR screen with masking panels for converting the 100" wide 2.35 format to 16x9. It was one they brought to CEDIA a couple of years back. The beast was over 100 lbs and it was quite a task installing by myself. I will add some pics this weekend to show off the system but was just so pleased with the screen i wanted post about it. The fabric is so fine of a weave that you can not see any weave unless you get right on it. My front seats are about 7 ft away and no sign of weave or texture (screen door effect). I am using a Sony 500es on low lamp setting and the pic is good on the 2.35 zoom setting with no desire to switch to bright cinema setting. I have not tried 3d at 2.35 yet so there might be an issue there but so far, it looks great. I was a little concern over how much light loss i would get and the halo effect behind the screen but the black backing takes care of that well. The material is very thin and flexible so i could see how wrinkles would be concern especially with a big screen but these guys really have this done well. The black velvet borders also are a nice add so a little overspray with the image just disappears. As far as audio transparency, I could not tell any drop in clarity, highs or volume. Finally, working with Chris and his team was very pleasant. He followed up after i got it to see if i had questions or concerns. in the end, i was able to get a great 2.35 screen with masking system and one of the best audio transparent screens for the price many would pay for a standard material retractable.


----------



## lovingdvd

Oilmanmojo said:


> Just got my "new" SeymourAV with EN4k up (sorry, not centerstage) up and have been blown away with the performance. I had picked up their Demo MFR screen with masking panels for converting the 100" wide 2.35 format to 16x9. It was one they brought to CEDIA a couple of years back. The beast was over 100 lbs and it was quite a task installing by myself. I will add some pics this weekend to show off the system but was just so pleased with the screen i wanted post about it. The fabric is so fine of a weave that you can not see any weave unless you get right on it. My front seats are about 7 ft away and no sign of weave or texture (screen door effect). I am using a Sony 500es on low lamp setting and the pic is good on the 2.35 zoom setting with no desire to switch to bright cinema setting. I have not tried 3d at 2.35 yet so there might be an issue there but so far, it looks great. I was a little concern over how much light loss i would get and the halo effect behind the screen but the black backing takes care of that well. The material is very thin and flexible so i could see how wrinkles would be concern especially with a big screen but these guys really have this done well. The black velvet borders also are a nice add so a little overspray with the image just disappears. As far as audio transparency, I could not tell any drop in clarity, highs or volume. Finally, working with Chris and his team was very pleasant. He followed up after i got it to see if i had questions or concerns. in the end, i was able to get a great 2.35 screen with masking system and one of the best audio transparent screens for the price many would pay for a standard material retractable.


Congrats. What weighed over 100 lbs, the screen? If so is it an automated masking system?


----------



## Oilmanmojo

lovingdvd said:


> Congrats. What weighed over 100 lbs, the screen? If so is it an automated masking system?


Sorry, yes it is an automated masking system. The screen is a 100" wide 2.35 screen with a separate roller for the side masking strips that convert to a 16x9. The masking panels are weighted and drop down on top of the screen. In essence its two roller systems. I could not get the full height for a 100" wide 16x9 so this was an elegant way to get a big 2.35 screen but still have a nice 16x9


----------



## lovingdvd

Oilmanmojo said:


> Sorry, yes it is an automated masking system. The screen is a 100" wide 2.35 screen with a separate roller for the side masking strips that convert to a 16x9. The masking panels are weighted and drop down on top of the screen. In essence its two roller systems. I could not get the full height for a 100" wide 16x9 so this was an elegant way to get a big 2.35 screen but still have a nice 16x9


Awesome! How do you like its mechanical operation? PM sent.


----------



## Oilmanmojo

lovingdvd said:


> Awesome! How do you like its mechanical operation? PM sent.


The unit is a tank, very well built hence why it weighs so much. The mechanics work well but they are not whisper quiet. Don't get me wrong, they are not real loud, but you will hear it during operation.


----------



## mv038856

Yes, finally pulled the trigger on the 130" curved Seymour AV premier frame screen with the CenterStage XD screen material!










I am so excited about its performance. I had ordered the bigger sample piece before, but that did not prepare me for the effect the complete product has...

I am sitting very close, just a little further than the screen width. In consequence, almost the whole field of vision is covered by the screen. It is still far enough for me to not notice the weave of the CenterStage XD screen material.

The increased level of immersion is what really surprised me. I assume, it is the curvature, combined with the short viewing distance and the "field of vision coverage". Only watched 2D so far, but it has a 3-dimensional look. The sound coming directly from the screen increases immersion even further.
Another effect of the "field of vision coverage" is that my D-Box motion system is even more fun when you have no fixed visual reference points. You have the moving picture and you feel the movement of yourself in the D-Box seat... really weird, especially when the camera motion is dubbed by the motion code... now I understand that somebody more delicate could get motion sick in a D-Box set... 

Since I am sitting so close now, I now can detect all the deficiencies of the movies in a way I never did before. Especially the level of image sharpness and differences of sharpness/resolution. In the Star Wars franchise, Episodes 1 to 3, e.g. the artificial characters and backgrounds are rendered in a lower resolution than the rest of the picture. But even in movies with no (or not so obvious) digital animation, differences in sharpness within a scene (which could be intended by the director) or between scenes do not go unnoticed by me anymore... 

My "old" JVC DLA-RS50 projectors can now show their qualities, as well as the ISCO III anamorphic lenses. Being "only" FullHD, my sharpness observations above bring me to the point where I question the whole 4K debate... anyway, one or two new projectors are not on the short list anyway...  

Compared to my former screen material, the DA-Lite DA-MAT High Contrast, a grey screen, that was advertized with a 0.85 Gain, the CenterStage XD has *twice(!) *the gain. I already discovered this when I was playing around with the sample that I had ordered a few years ago. Although my new Seymour screen has twice the screen surface, compared to my old screen, which was a 80" 16:9 screen, the image is still very bright.

I am so excited about the screen. Of course, everybody is always pointing out how important the screen is, but the increase in immersion of the new setup got my by surprise! 

I hope that I will find the time soon to set up the second projector and the Dolby 3D system... I will report back when I managed to do this and give my impressions about the 3D performance. 

Thanks to Seymour AV for such a great product!

Markus


----------



## lovingdvd

mv038856 said:


> ...I am sitting very close, just a little further than the screen width. In consequence, almost the whole field of vision is covered by the screen. It is still far enough for me to not notice the weave of the CenterStage XD screen material...


How many feet are you sitting from the screen, and can you every detect any screen texture, perhaps on every bright or even all white scenes?

I've looked at a half dozen (maybe more) AT screens, and measured them for acoustical transparency and screen gain, and so far XD is my favorite. Funny, I say "so far" like I have some additional options - at this point I think I've exhausted the possibilities.


----------



## mv038856

lovingdvd said:


> How many feet are you sitting from the screen, and can you every detect any screen texture, perhaps on every bright or even all white scenes?
> 
> I've looked at a half dozen (maybe more) AT screens, and measured them for acoustical transparency and screen gain, and so far XD is my favorite. Funny, I say "so far" like I have some additional options - at this point I think I've exhausted the possibilities.


I am sitting 8 ft 8" (266cm) from the screen and I haven't noticed the weave ever. Now that I have measured the distance for you "forehead to screen", I recognized that I even sit closer to the screen than the screen is wide...

I was also looking around for the best AT screen material for my purpose. Since I wanted to go large and the light output of my JVC projectors is limited, the "real gain" was very important. The CenterStage XD sample from Seymour helped a lot to check the visibility of the weave in my application and as I noted above it helped me to get the "relative gain" regarding my old screen material. I used the colorimeter that I use to autocalibrate my projectors with my Lumagen processors. There I noticed that for all colors, the measured brightness values on the CengterStage XD sample were more than double compared to the values for my old Da-Lite Da-Mat HC Screen. If the "real" gain of the CenterStage is 1.0, then the gain of the Da-Lite Da-Mat HC must be appr. 0.5, despite the 0.85 gain that is advertized. The observation that AT screen materials are usually advertized with a way higher gain than they really have is documented in the report that is available on Seymour AV's web site, where an AV consultant compared and measured a number of screen materials, among them the CenterStage XD for their visual and their audio performance. Living in Germany, I also contacted a German screen maufacturer to get a sample of their AT screen material. They refused to send a sample, as a sample could not convey what a screen can do. While I would support that statement, now that I have experienced my new Seymour AV Screen, a sample still is usefull to check on weave visibility and gain. The latter could be the "real" reason why they would not ship a sample... I found a test on the web where they compared the AT screen material from the said manufacturer with the Studiotek 130 from Stewart screens. While the test sounded quite positive regarding the AT screen material, a look at the measurements revealed that the AT screen material measured more than 2/3rds lower in ft lambert than the Studiotek 130. Assuming the 1.3 gain of a Studiotek is correct (which is supported by the AV consultant's report, mentioned above), then the AT material from the German manufacturer's gain is way below 0.5!

Long story short, I suggest you get a sample an check if you can see the weave. I can confirm that the reflective properties are very good. I even closed the IRIS a little on my JVC projector. I also used the tool on projectorcentral.com where you can select your projector, projection distance, screen size and gain and play around a little.

Hope this helps!

Markus


----------



## jago1911

BrolicBeast said:


> I got the Premier Frame--nice velvet all around. Definitely using masking...those panels leaning against the corners are the curved masking panels (they each come in halves) that will magnetically attach to the screen at the top and bottom of the screen to frame 2:35 content. Best of both worlds--this is as wide and as high as my room can handle, so it's not CIW or CIH--it's CIE (Constant Image Excellence!)


I've watched your "Lumagen Radiance 16:9-to-2:35 using NLS (Non-Liner Stretch)" video several times and was going to get the same for my 2.35 screen build out in a few months. Your video is what convinced me to stay away from getting a 16:9 screen. Do you think masking a giant 16:9 is superior to doing NLS on a 2.35 screen now?


----------



## DavidK442

lovingdvd said:


> How many feet are you sitting from the screen, and can you ever detect any screen texture, perhaps on every bright or even all white scenes?





mv038856 said:


> I am sitting 8 ft 8" (266cm) from the screen and I haven't noticed the weave ever.


Fortunate, because in general most can see the XD weave from a greater distance, and I would suggest that even Seymour would not fully recommend XD for such close seating. Some where between 10 and 12 feet is where it becomes a non-issue for most.


----------



## lovingdvd

mv038856 said:


> ...Long story short, I suggest you get a sample an check if you can see the weave. I can confirm that the reflective properties are very good. I even closed the IRIS a little on my JVC projector. I also used the tool on projectorcentral.com where you can select your projector, projection distance, screen size and gain and play around a little.
> 
> Hope this helps!
> 
> Markus


Oh yes, I'm way ahead there. Have already gathered about a half dozen AT large screen samples and measured them all acoustically and for their gain. As I mentioned earlier, the XD material came out on top for my purposes and seating distance (12.5').



DavidK442 said:


> Fortunate, because in general most can see the XD weave from a greater distance, and I would suggest that even Seymour would not fully recommend XD for such close seating. Some where between 10 and 12 feet is where it becomes a non-issue for most.


I believe their recommendation for the XD is from 11' and beyond.


----------



## Mike Garrett

lovingdvd said:


> How many feet are you sitting from the screen, and can you every detect any screen texture, perhaps on every bright or even all white scenes?
> 
> I've looked at a half dozen (maybe more) AT screens, and measured them for acoustical transparency and screen gain, and so far XD is my favorite. Funny, I say "so far" like I have some additional options - at this point I think I've exhausted the possibilities.


XD is a good choice as long as the viewing distance is 11' and greater. Some use it with closer viewing distances, but the trade off is seeing the weave more often.


----------



## blastermaster

> The increased level of immersion is what really surprised me. I assume, it is the curvature, combined with the short viewing distance and the "field of vision coverage". Only watched 2D so far, but it has a 3-dimensional look. The sound coming directly from the screen increases immersion even further.
> Another effect of the "field of vision coverage" is that my D-Box motion system is even more fun when you have no fixed visual reference points. You have the moving picture and you feel the movement of yourself in the D-Box seat... really weird, especially when the camera motion is dubbed by the motion code... now I understand that somebody more delicate could get motion sick in a D-Box set...


I love my curved XD screen (it's a DIY using XD material, but I still love it!). The picture is great, of course, but to me the greatest benefit was the audio immersion. I had my speakers below the screen previous to this. When I moved them to ear level and had them dialed in (L/R toed in to the MLP) the sound became so crisp, clear and had impact. I'm glad you are liking your screen.


----------



## Freakquency

I picked up some Center Stage XD at Seymour AV in Ames earlier this week and didn't remember to ask if the XD has a side that needs to be on the projector side.
I emailed them, but since it's the weekend I don't expect to hear back until Monday.
When unrolling the fabric roll on a table the side that is up seems to be a finer pattern, I would think this is the projector side but it may be just my eyes.
Does anyone have info on this, I'm ready to mount the screen to the frame tonight, hoping not to have to wait until Monday.


----------



## ScottJ

Freakquency said:


> I picked up some Center Stage XD at Seymour AV in Ames earlier this week and didn't remember to ask if the XD has a side that needs to be on the projector side.
> I emailed them, but since it's the weekend I don't expect to hear back until Monday.
> When unrolling the fabric roll on a table the side that is up seems to be a finer pattern, I would think this is the projector side but it may be just my eyes.
> Does anyone have info on this, I'm ready to mount the screen to the frame tonight, hoping not to have to wait until Monday.


There is no "good side". One side is inspected before delivery (iirc it's the inside of the roll) but either side should work equally well.


----------



## Freakquency

ScottJ said:


> There is no "good side". One side is inspected before delivery (iirc it's the inside of the roll) but either side should work equally well.


 Thanks for the quick response ScottJ!


----------



## drpete12

I got my electric xd screen this past week...screen is great picture beautiful...the motor is horrible...when I drop screen I hear the screen material bunching up and then motor makes a high pitch sound..then material drops quickly and it sounds normal again...the backing black material seems to be causing this problem...very weird...is it possible it's new and needs to be broken in?

Should it not move at constant speed and sound the same from when it's dropped up until it's alll the way down?

Sorry for bad English and spelling...on iPhone now


----------



## chriscmore

drpete12 said:


> I got my electric xd screen this past week...screen is great picture beautiful...the motor is horrible...when I drop screen I hear the screen material bunching up and then motor makes a high pitch sound..then material drops quickly and it sounds normal again...the backing black material seems to be causing this problem...very weird...is it possible it's new and needs to be broken in?
> 
> Should it not move at constant speed and sound the same from when it's dropped up until it's alll the way down?
> 
> Sorry for bad English and spelling...on iPhone now


Without a video of what you're talking about, it's difficult to advise you. While the 230v motors are louder than the 120v motors, I don't know what constitutes your description of "horrible". What SPL are you measuring?

The speed will not be constant, as the roll diameter and loading changes. The black backing is independent of the screen, as they cannot roll up with the same diameter since they are dissimilar materials. A video could also make sure your black backing layer is free to drop as it's supposed to and not getting caught on something.

Jon is here: [email protected]
I am here: [email protected]

Chris


----------



## drpete12

I just want to clarify my posting. I did it on my iphone and i am not a great typer so i kept it short and sweet. It was not my intention to bash the screen or the company. I spoke with Chris at Seymour today and he was friendly and helpful. When I get home, i will call him and he will walk me thru a series of adjustments if they are neeeded. I will post more after we hammer out a few kinks.

I can tell you so far that the screen and housing are a tank. very solid and well built. Picture is to die for. Had neighbours over yesterday for demo and they were amazed. The black material they use if phenomenal. I have the projector overshooting screen a bit (havent had calibrator over yet) and u dont see any of it.

Will post more as i said...dont read into my post as it was not my intentions to make harsh statements.. Sorry Chris and thanks for the help

Peter


----------



## coolgeek

mv038856 said:


> Yes, finally pulled the trigger on the 130" curved Seymour AV premier frame screen with the CenterStage XD screen material!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am so excited about its performance. I had ordered the bigger sample piece before, but that did not prepare me for the effect the complete product has...
> 
> I am sitting very close, just a little further than the screen width. In consequence, almost the whole field of vision is covered by the screen. It is still far enough for me to not notice the weave of the CenterStage XD screen material.
> 
> The increased level of immersion is what really surprised me. I assume, it is the curvature, combined with the short viewing distance and the "field of vision coverage". Only watched 2D so far, but it has a 3-dimensional look. The sound coming directly from the screen increases immersion even further.
> Another effect of the "field of vision coverage" is that my D-Box motion system is even more fun when you have no fixed visual reference points. You have the moving picture and you feel the movement of yourself in the D-Box seat... really weird, especially when the camera motion is dubbed by the motion code... now I understand that somebody more delicate could get motion sick in a D-Box set...
> 
> Since I am sitting so close now, I now can detect all the deficiencies of the movies in a way I never did before. Especially the level of image sharpness and differences of sharpness/resolution. In the Star Wars franchise, Episodes 1 to 3, e.g. the artificial characters and backgrounds are rendered in a lower resolution than the rest of the picture. But even in movies with no (or not so obvious) digital animation, differences in sharpness within a scene (which could be intended by the director) or between scenes do not go unnoticed by me anymore...
> 
> My "old" JVC DLA-RS50 projectors can now show their qualities, as well as the ISCO III anamorphic lenses. Being "only" FullHD, my sharpness observations above bring me to the point where I question the whole 4K debate... anyway, one or two new projectors are not on the short list anyway...
> 
> Compared to my former screen material, the DA-Lite DA-MAT High Contrast, a grey screen, that was advertized with a 0.85 Gain, the CenterStage XD has *twice(!) *the gain. I already discovered this when I was playing around with the sample that I had ordered a few years ago. Although my new Seymour screen has twice the screen surface, compared to my old screen, which was a 80" 16:9 screen, the image is still very bright.
> 
> I am so excited about the screen. Of course, everybody is always pointing out how important the screen is, but the increase in immersion of the new setup got my by surprise!
> 
> I hope that I will find the time soon to set up the second projector and the Dolby 3D system... I will report back when I managed to do this and give my impressions about the 3D performance.
> 
> Thanks to Seymour AV for such a great product!
> 
> Markus



I have the same experience as you Markus.

I simply love the XD curved screen. 

BTW: You mentioned questioning 4K... have you had a chance to demo the Sony 4K projector? On the XD screen, the 4K projector shows every pore on a person's skin, every hair, (including hairs on hands and legs, and body), and sharpness is nuts... sometimes i feel like the people on screen is really standing there. (and this is with upscaled 4K from HD materials).


----------



## simon_templar_32

Below are some comments on the Seymour Precision framing, as well as a brief comparison (with respect to my viewing environment) of the Phifer Sheerweave, Seymour XD, and Seymour UF screen material. My screen is 95 inches wide. I sit about 9.5 feet from the screen. The projector sits about 11 feet from the screen at roughly the top edge of the screen. I have viewed the Phifer with the Panasonic 900 and 4000, the XD with the 4000, and the UF with the 4000 and Panasonic 8000.


Seymour is very easy to work with and has excellent customer service.


The Seymour frame and screen came securely packed, with the screen itself in an inner mailing-type tube. The frame is easy to assemble and the o-ring and grommet system works well with tensioning. The top and bottom parts of the frame came in two pieces each. There is a very slight notch in the top of the frame at the join, visible only in very bright scenes and only if I am looking for it. It doesn’t really bother me, but some might wish to pay extra for one-piece construction just in case. The velvet border works well at soaking up any spillover. I got the frame with the eyelets for hanging. Placing eyelets is tricky. If they are too close to the center, the screen bows up from its weight; too close to the edges and the frame will bow down. Seymour places them well, but I still decided to support the frame on the bottom.


I originally ordered an XD screen, but switched to the UF material. Seymour made the swap out easy and painless.


On to the screen comparison.


The Phifer had a tendency to bloom, which would often result in a somewhat washed-out picture. Neither the XD nor UF exhibit this tendency; colors really pop on both. Indeed, the UF and the Panasonic 8000 produce an image very close to my Samsung LCD’s.


I never saw any sparklies with the Phifer. Both the XD and UF material occasionally sparkle, the UF material less so.


For a weave-visibility test, I use the opening sequence of (the original) “Ice Age.” From my 9.5 foot vantage point, the Phifer weave is noticeable and can be distracting. The XD weave also can be seen, but it is less intrusive than the Phifer. The UF weave per se is not visible, but I occasionally can see a faint sort of banding that follows the angled weave pattern. Do I wish there was no evidence of texture at all? Yes. Do I believe that is possible with my eyesight at 9.5 feet? No, and I am not going to let perfection be the enemy of the (very) good.


Final comments on the UF’s gain. For 2D, the 8000 on Cinema 2 and eco mode is plenty bright. For 3D (with the Sony PlayStation glasses), dynamic and normal mode works just fine.


----------



## lovingdvd

simon_templar_32 said:


> ...I originally ordered an XD screen, but switched to the UF material. Seymour made the swap out easy and painless...


Thanks for the report. Can you please elaborate in detail as to why you switched from XD to UF? Also out of curiosity did you make any observations on how these various materials looked further away, like say from 12 feet?


----------



## simon_templar_32

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks for the report. Can you please elaborate in detail as to why you switched from XD to UF? Also out of curiosity did you make any observations on how these various materials looked further away, like say from 12 feet?


Even though the XD is better than the Phifer, I became fixated on the actual weave, which really stands out to me once I see it, however infrequently it appears with the XD. The UF banding is a more subtle artifact, and I can live with it. I can see both the XD weave and the UF banding from 12 feet, and even further, but I know what to look for and when to look for it. Having said all that, it is all dependent on my eyesight, my processing chain, and my viewing environment--YMMV.


----------



## mv038856

coolgeek said:


> BTW: You mentioned questioning 4K... have you had a chance to demo the Sony 4K projector? On the XD screen, the 4K projector shows every pore on a person's skin, every hair, (including hairs on hands and legs, and body), and sharpness is nuts... sometimes i feel like the people on screen is really standing there. (and this is with upscaled 4K from HD materials).


I fear once I have experienced a true 4K projector in my home, I would want to buy one or two... 

I have seen the first Sony 4K projector and it was impressing indeed. I just think that with the cinematic source material currently available I can easily detect the deficiencies of the material with my "old" JVC DLA-RS50 projectors. Would a 4K PJ make this any better?

But you are probably right... everybody owning a 4K PJ tells me that 4K would be the measure to get to the next level with my home theater... Since I need two I most probably wait for them to get lower priced... and maybe the light source will get better (Laser/LED). 

Another challenge is that my current setup is optimized for the JVCs and their properties. I almost go to maximum zoom and I can fill the 130" Seymour screen's width only because I use ISCO IIILs to strech the picture by 33%. Any projector with a throw distance of more than 1.4 would not work for me. A deeper PJ chassis would be a problem too. The same applies for projectors that have lenses that are recessed too much. Going max. zoom, the picture currently just fits into the IIILs opening on the back and it fills the entire lens width on the front. Moving the lens away from the PJ means that the picure is cut on the sides.

Aren't these good excuses not to spend 20K on two 4K projectors... 

Cheers!

Markus


----------



## coolgeek

mv038856 said:


> I fear once I have experienced a true 4K projector in my home, I would want to buy one or two...
> 
> I have seen the first Sony 4K projector and it was impressing indeed. I just think that with the cinematic source material currently available I can easily detect the deficiencies of the material with my "old" JVC DLA-RS50 projectors. Would a 4K PJ make this any better?
> 
> But you are probably right... everybody owning a 4K PJ tells me that 4K would be the measure to get to the next level with my home theater... Since I need two I most probably wait for them to get lower priced... and maybe the light source will get better (Laser/LED).
> 
> Another challenge is that my current setup is optimized for the JVCs and their properties. I almost go to maximum zoom and I can fill the 130" Seymour screen's width only because I use ISCO IIILs to strech the picture by 33%. Any projector with a throw distance of more than 1.4 would not work for me. A deeper PJ chassis would be a problem too. The same applies for projectors that have lenses that are recessed too much. Going max. zoom, the picture currently just fits into the IIILs opening on the back and it fills the entire lens width on the front. Moving the lens away from the PJ means that the picure is cut on the sides.
> 
> Aren't these good excuses not to spend 20K on two 4K projectors...
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Markus


Hi Markus,

I have compared side by side both the Sony 4K with other 2K projectors... The upscaling of the Sony is akin to magic. I don't even know how it works, but it seems to add details that aren't there to begin with... i mean, if one can't see tiny hairs on a HD projector (with 2K materials) how did they pop up on the sony? I mean, you can see every pore on the skin too... it's incredible.. and it's ultra bright, smooth and detailed. I sometimes wonder if i had actual 4K materials, whether it'll make much difference... I can tell you this... the 'exact same' video of regular 2K content on a regular blu ray will look night and day different between a 2K projector vs the sony 4K. 

In fact, since I have immersed myself with the 4k, nowadays when i go watch a movie, even on the IMAX, the images at the cinemas seems blurry in comparison.... if i stopped watching my own 4K projector for a while, my eye adjust back and the pic quality in cinemas becomes ok to me... 

BTW: I don't know why you would need 2 projectors on your 130 inch screen. The Sony seems bright enough for your screen and the XD material. As for zoom, i think the sony can be placed closer than the JVC if you want and still stretch the image to your max screen. Also, with the Sony, you won't really need the A-Lens... i don't use one...


----------



## Dirk44

Hello Simon T.

i plan to build a deep curved screen by seymour XD material like nils here (aka follgott)
My Room "Restructions" give me viewing distance of max. 10-11 feet by screen wide 157".
How wide is your sceen ? Your post make thing to switch from XD to UF again.

Best dirk


----------



## mv038856

coolgeek said:


> BTW: I don't know why you would need 2 projectors on your 130 inch screen. The Sony seems bright enough for your screen and the XD material. As for zoom, i think the sony can be placed closer than the JVC if you want and still stretch the image to your max screen. Also, with the Sony, you won't really need the A-Lens... i don't use one...


I am running a two projector Dolby 3D system (Infitec system) and that simply uses one projector per eye... fortunate I don't have four eyes... 

Have you ever experienced an Infitec 3D or Dolby 3D setup? It is so much better than active 3D through shutter glasses and even better than the polarized 3D/silver screen in cinemas.


----------



## pgwalsh

mv038856 said:


> I am running a two projector Dolby 3D system (Infitec system) and that simply uses one projector per eye... fortunate I don't have four eyes...
> 
> Have you ever experienced an Infitec 3D or Dolby 3D setup? It is so much better than active 3D through shutter glasses and even better than the polarized 3D/silver screen in cinemas.


This is something I would really like to see. I can't stand 3D glasses or any glasses for that matter.


----------



## coolgeek

mv038856 said:


> I am running a two projector Dolby 3D system (Infitec system) and that simply uses one projector per eye... fortunate I don't have four eyes...
> 
> Have you ever experienced an Infitec 3D or Dolby 3D setup? It is so much better than active 3D through shutter glasses and even better than the polarized 3D/silver screen in cinemas.


Oh wow!!! That would be the ultimate setup for 3D (and nope, i haven't heard of such a setup). Unfortunately, I almost can't afford a single projector much less 2 of them.. haha

I can't wait for the Laser 4K projectors that Barco and Christie are coming out with for their Cinema clients... and for them to trickle down to consumer level... lasers, 4K, HDR, HFR.... that would be the most awesome of all!


----------



## coolgeek

pgwalsh said:


> This is something I would really like to see. I can't stand 3D glasses or any glasses for that matter.


You would still need 3D glasses. With 2 projectors the image will just be crisper, brighter, and better colors.


----------



## pgwalsh

coolgeek said:


> You would still need 3D glasses. With 2 projectors the image will just be crisper, brighter, and better colors.


Bummer. Probably still be n eat to see.


----------



## BrolicBeast

jago1911 said:


> I've watched your "Lumagen Radiance 16:9-to-2:35 using NLS (Non-Liner Stretch)" video several times and was going to get the same for my 2.35 screen build out in a few months. Your video is what convinced me to stay away from getting a 16:9 screen. Do you think masking a giant 16:9 is superior to doing NLS on a 2.35 screen now?



Greetings! Well, my situation has changed somewhat. In many theaters, there are height and width limitations that affect screen size. In my last theater, I could only get a 92" 16:9 screen in my room (which I used happily for three years). After it started to look "small" to me, I kept the height constraint (center speaker on top of credenza) and increased the width to a 2:35 image, and the screen was huge!! The NLS was an amazing way to get 16:9 content onto a 2:35 screen.


In the new theater I am putting together, there aren't any applicable height constrains, which means I can go as high and as wide as I want. So, I figured--why not use the whole height of the room since it's available? on a 2:35 screen, the NLS is superior to raw 16:9 with masking, in my opinion. And, once Lumagen releases a 4k processor, I'll probably NLS most programs anyway, just because the 2:35 aspect ratio looks awesome. Now, what I look forward to testing is how the Lumagen treats 2:35 content reformatted to 16:9 displays. I wonder if it'll be as impressive? I'll know soon! I know ith as the capability because I tested it out a few times before switching to 2:35...but the screen was small and not a good representation of large-scale performance.


I hope this dissertation answered your questions. I tend to be long-winded when I'm excited about something


----------



## mv038856

pgwalsh said:


> This is something I would really like to see. I can't stand 3D glasses or any glasses for that matter.


The Dolby 3D that Dolby lincensed from Infitec and that is/was used in a number of cinemas as an alternative to Real3D also uses glasses. In contrast to Real3D, Dolby 3D works with color band filters, i.e. RGB are split for the right and the left eye. The channel separation is outstanding, so there is no ghosting. The glasses are much lighter than the active shutter glasses. They are comparable in weight to the Real3D glasses one wears in the cinemas.


----------



## simon_templar_32

Dirk44 said:


> Hello Simon T.
> 
> i plan to build a deep curved screen by seymour XD material like nils here (aka follgott)
> My Room "Restructions" give me viewing distance of max. 10-11 feet by screen wide 157".
> How wide is your sceen ? Your post make thing to switch from XD to UF again.
> 
> Best dirk


My screen is a 95 inch wide 16:9 screen. I happen to be very sensitive to screen artifacts. I would get some samples (the larger size if you can afford it) and do some careful test viewing with bright, panning scenes. The Seymour screens are a good value; just make sure you get the right material.


----------



## chriscmore

Is that like the system Sim2 uses, with precision magenta and green lenses? While it's easy to cringe at the thought of the anaglyph / color method of 3D, the Sim2 system had lab-grade glass filters and everything blended perfectly with no color artifacts.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

simon_templar_32 said:


> The UF banding is a more subtle artifact, and I can live with it. I can see both the XD weave and the UF banding from 12 feet, and even further, but I know what to look for and when to look for it. Having said all that, it is all dependent on my eyesight, my processing chain, and my viewing environment--YMMV.


As much as I love all the Panasonics I've owned, their convergence isn't perfect and I've found that they can therefore sometimes not play nice with the UF. Test if tilting either the screen or projector helps and we can one-off a replacement UF with tilt (if we didn't do that already on your screen). We don't do that as standard because 99% of projectors are converged ok. But as a longtime Panny fan, I admit that its convergence sometimes causes problems. I think this is overall a temporary issue in projection.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## lovingdvd

BrolicBeast said:


> Greetings! Well, my situation has changed somewhat. In many theaters, there are height and width limitations that affect screen size. In my last theater, I could only get a 92" 16:9 screen in my room (which I used happily for three years). After it started to look "small" to me, I kept the height constraint (center speaker on top of credenza) and increased the width to a 2:35 image, and the screen was huge!! The NLS was an amazing way to get 16:9 content onto a 2:35 screen.
> 
> 
> In the new theater I am putting together, there aren't any applicable height constrains, which means I can go as high and as wide as I want. So, I figured--why not use the whole height of the room since it's available? on a 2:35 screen, the NLS is superior to raw 16:9 with masking, in my opinion. And, once Lumagen releases a 4k processor, I'll probably NLS most programs anyway, just because the 2:35 aspect ratio looks awesome. Now, what I look forward to testing is how the Lumagen treats 2:35 content reformatted to 16:9 displays. I wonder if it'll be as impressive? I'll know soon! I know ith as the capability because I tested it out a few times before switching to 2:35...but the screen was small and not a good representation of large-scale performance.
> 
> 
> I hope this dissertation answered your questions. I tend to be long-winded when I'm excited about something


Yes that is essentially the same mindset I had in planning my room. I went with the tallest screen I could fit and then will go with the width that makes that a 2.40 AR (in my case about 140"w). I've had a Lumagen for years but never a 2.35 screen. Does the NLS work THAT well whereby you can stretch most 16:9 materials and even sports to 2.35? If its that good I wonder if I'll even need to do a masking screen then (since I'd likely always have everthing at 2.35 or 2.40)...


----------



## lovingdvd

Has anyone with the XD screen and a black pit room measured their ANSI CR at the screen, and if so, what did you get? All weave screens Seymour or not are pretty poor at ambient light rejection, so I have some concerns that even with black velvet on the side walls and ceiling that it may be hard to get really good ANSI CR with this (or any) weave screen. Thoughts?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I think with some weave screens, there are some potential issues with a drop in intra-pixel ANSI CR because the light bounces off the weave and may affect dimmer adjacent pixels, and we don't get that with perf pvc because the pvc is still flat. I think if you did a normal ANSI test using the chequerboard pattern, you'd get similar results compared to another screen with the same gain. Hopefully Chris can give us a more definitive answer though.

Gary


----------



## lovingdvd

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I think with some weave screens, there are some potential issues with a drop in intra-pixel ANSI CR because the light bounces off the weave and may affect dimmer adjacent pixels, and we don't get that with perf pvc because the pvc is still flat. I think if you did a normal ANSI test using the chequerboard pattern, you'd get similar results compared to another screen with the same gain. Hopefully Chris can give us a more definitive answer though.
> 
> Gary


Thanks Gary. I think the issue is more about ambient light control. One thing I noticed about all the weave screens I tested (a half dozen or so) is that they all were very poor with any ambient light. The manufacturers even state this up front - that it is not intended for use with ambient light. In my case I'll be filling a 140" screen with 1500+ lumens. That is a LOT of light to go scattering all over. I am specifically designing the room to have a velvet screen wall, 5-6 feet of velvet on each side of the screen, velvet on the ceiling and dark carpet. This should really help control the reflections, but even so there will be a fair amount of light still bouncing around. This can have quite an impact on the ANSI CR. And in a room without dark walls I imagine it would be even more significant. That is why I am wondering if anyone has measured it at their screen (not at the pj).


----------



## DavidK442

lovingdvd said:


> Has anyone with the XD screen and a black pit room measured their ANSI CR at the screen, and if so, what did you get? All weave screens Seymour or not are pretty poor at ambient light rejection, so I have some concerns that even with black velvet on the side walls and ceiling that it may be hard to get really good ANSI CR with this (or any) weave screen. Thoughts?


It seems to me that unless you are looking at a high priced retro-reflective screen specifically engineered to fight ambient light all typical wide angle white screens (woven or not) will reflect ambient light right along with the projected light.

(Hey Mr. Seymour sir: Please make me a screen that has at least 1.0 gain with near perfect color accuracy, negligible impact to audio and no noticeable weave at 8 feet...and oh ya, please make it suck up ambient light so I can watch my horror movies with the lights on so I don't get scared. Thanks.)


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Grey screens, or grey screens with a little gain work best to combat ambient. Lower gain weave screens are better than unity screens because they reflect less light, but ambient light will kill the black floor of any projector.

Black velvet will certainly help with reflections, but ambient (I assume you mean some actual light in the room rather than reflective walls etc) will negate a lot of what you do.

What is the source of your ambient light?

Gary


----------



## Ellebob

One option for rooms with ambient light is to use a screen material for ambient light that is perforated. There are tradeoffs with woven vs. perforated but depending on the situation it might be a solution to consider. Like other aspects of audio and video it is about finding the right product for your application, there is no perfect screen, speaker, etc. that works in all situations.


----------



## lovingdvd

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Grey screens, or grey screens with a little gain work best to combat ambient. Lower gain weave screens are better than unity screens because they reflect less light, but ambient light will kill the black floor of any projector.
> 
> Black velvet will certainly help with reflections, but ambient (I assume you mean some actual light in the room rather than reflective walls etc) will negate a lot of what you do.
> 
> What is the source of your ambient light?
> 
> Gary


Ah yes, I should clarify. In my case, by ambient light I mean the light that is reflected from the screen back into the room and the reflections from that. No other light sources or outside room light or daylight etc.

I will have 140"w with screen edges (not frame edges) just 4" from ceiling and only 15" from each side wall and about 2feet from floor. So with 1500-1700 lumens it'll be throwing light all over the place.

The velvet should help a great deal but with this much brightness and this close to the surfaces (even the blackest of velvets have some sheen and are not a complete black hole) and this many lumens it's going to be a challenge maximizing ANSI CR with any woven screen and especially one like the XD which has among the best gain (which is one thing I love about it since I have a large screen to fill).


----------



## simon_templar_32

chriscmore said:


> As much as I love all the Panasonics I've owned, their convergence isn't perfect and I've found that they can therefore sometimes not play nice with the UF. Test if tilting either the screen or projector helps and we can one-off a replacement UF with tilt (if we didn't do that already on your screen). We don't do that as standard because 99% of projectors are converged ok. But as a longtime Panny fan, I admit that its convergence sometimes causes problems. I think this is overall a temporary issue in projection.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris,

Thanks for the quick response! The UF screen came tilted. I saw that you made a comment about the Panasonic projectors in another thread so I had asked Jon to make sure the UF material was tilted. My suspicion is that if you have a textured screen, then you will be aware of that from time to time under typical viewing distances. In my room, for example, the regular room ceiling light alone will produce some angled banding (following the weave tilt) that can be seen from my viewing distance of 9.5 feet..


----------



## mv038856

chriscmore said:


> Is that like the system Sim2 uses, with precision magenta and green lenses? While it's easy to cringe at the thought of the anaglyph / color method of 3D, the Sim2 system had lab-grade glass filters and everything blended perfectly with no color artifacts.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hi Chris,

I don't know what SIM2 uses, but Infitec licensed their system to a number of companies. The color filters are said to consist of 200 layers to acchieve the channel separation.

Infitec is a spin-off from Daimler (Mercedes) where engineers were not satisfied with the available technology for 3D visualization... Like a Mercedes, the system is of high quality... but not cheap. I think the cost of the glasses were the main reason why Real3D was/is used in way more cinemas.

Cheers

Markus


----------



## chriscmore

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I think with some weave screens, there are some potential issues with a drop in intra-pixel ANSI CR because the light bounces off the weave and may affect dimmer adjacent pixels, and we don't get that with perf pvc because the pvc is still flat. I think if you did a normal ANSI test using the chequerboard pattern, you'd get similar results compared to another screen with the same gain. Hopefully Chris can give us a more definitive answer though.
> 
> Gary


The last I measured ANSI on the XD was 99% vs a reference solid target. We have a final baking and flattening step in the XD manufacture that flattens it just enough to solve cross-pixel light interaction but not too much to squash the AT properties of the weave. A summer or two ago we were out of stock of the XD for two months because four batches (~9000 ft) failed this final step.

There was an oft-sited white paper written by Stewart against woven screens and they chose the thickest, lowest ANSI material at the time which was Screen Research's Clear Pix. I measured them at 92% ANSI, but these are incremental differences that are hard to distinguish on their own. Elunevision's material is also thick and Scotch-brite-like that too, a performance aspect that was the only valid point of Stewart's paper.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Thanks for the info Chris, it's very useful.

SMPTE recently produced a report that weave screens are better than perf, so Stewart have now produced their own weave screen. Have you seen a comparison report of that new material yet?

Gary


----------



## Dr. Jekyll

New Seymour AV Center Stage XD owner here! All I can say is WOW! 

I decided to use Seymour simply for the fact that it was acoustically transparent. My original screen was 92" and since I want to move up to a 110" screen my main speaker would definitely be covered so AT was the only route.

First off I'd like to say that both Jon and Chris were extremely helpful in the selection and ordering process. It took me awhile to make a decision and after Jon sent a few samples I ultimately chose the XD as it most closely resembled the Studiotek 130 from Stewart that I was replacing. Initially I was very concerned that I'd lose the beautiful bright screen that the industry standard Stewart provided simply because the new one would be AT and using simple logic I felt I'd lose some of the gain and clarity. Boy was I wrong! I know upgrading my older JVC RS1 with the newer JVC 57U probably helped my case but I swear the new combo is twice as nice, and I was happy with the old set up to begin with, I just wanted a larger screen. 

The new screen is INCREDIBLE! Not only do I feel it's just as nice as my old screen but the fit and finish are excellent! The case is sleek and modern compared to the bulky and industrial looking Luxus A and the motor is at least 50% quieter. The remote is comfortable and sleek and the RF receiver works flawlessly from any position in my 200 sq. ft. viewing area. Just the appearance of the case along with smooth operation of the motor puts the Seymour well ahead of the Stewart in design and function.

I will disagree with Chris on one point, I can't see any moire inside of 10 ft where I was told I might and that's a huge plus as some of my seat are as close as 7 ft from the screen. From my seating position I cannot tell it's an AT screen at all. My ears however are very happy with the screen. The only drawback is I now have to move any electronics. Out from behind the screen or create an AV cabinet as any bright indicator light will show thorough the screen reminding you that it's transparent. 

The only complaint I have is not discovering AT screens and Seymour earlier! You simply cannot find a better screen for the price IMHO. If you are considering a new screen in the future you'd be doing yourself a favor by giving the good folks at Seymour AV a call!


----------



## ScottJ

Dr. Jekyll said:


> The only drawback is I now have to move any electronics. Out from behind the screen or create an AV cabinet as any bright indicator light will show thorough the screen reminding you that it's transparent.


My equipment is all behind my XD screen and I can't see any lights shining through, thanks to these: http://www.lightdims.com/


----------



## Dr. Jekyll

ScottJ said:


> My equipment is all behind my XD screen and I can't see any lights shining through, thanks to these: http://www.lightdims.com/


BOOM, thanks bud!


----------



## chriscmore

Forum member SOWK got the Home Theater of the Month award this month. Very nice bat cave with an XD screen, JTR, and Sony: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/2092370-ht-month-black-hole.html

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## aakrusen

I just order (on Sunday) the F100 with Center Stage UF material and I'm wondering if I should have either asked for the XD instead or possibly asked for the UF to be cut tilted. I'll be using a Panny AE8000U projector so would there be a convergence issue with this projector and this screen? Is it too late to change or update my order?

Thanks,
Andy


----------



## aakrusen

I just order (on Sunday) the F100 with Center Stage UF material and I'm wondering if I should have either asked for the XD instead or possibly asked for the UF to be cut tilted. I'll be using a Panny AE8000U projector so would there be a convergence issue with this projector and this screen? Is it too late to change or update my order?

Thanks,
Andy


----------



## cw5billwade

I am using XD with the AE 8000 and love it. it was cut tilted.


----------



## DavidK442

aakrusen said:


> I just order (on Sunday) the F100 with Center Stage UF material and I'm wondering if I should have either asked for the XD instead or possibly asked for the UF to be cut tilted. I'll be using a Panny AE8000U projector so would there be a convergence issue with this projector and this screen? Is it too late to change or update my order?
> 
> Thanks,
> Andy


 
XD is brighter, UF has less visible weave. The AE8000 will have no problem lighting your 100" wide UF screen, so if you are worried about visual artifacts (moire or screen texture), then you made the correct choice.


----------



## aakrusen

DavidK442 said:


> XD is brighter, UF has less visible weave. The AE8000 will have no problem lighting your 100" wide UF screen, so if you are worried about visual artifacts (moire or screen texture), then you made the correct choice.


I received an email from Jon stating that they were planning on cutting the material tilted, so we're good there.

Thankfully brightness is not as critical with my theater setup as I control 100% of the light in this room. I ultimately went with the UF due to my seating distance 10-11 feet and I will eventually upgrade to 4K. Once I see the weave I know I'll always be looking for it so based on the samples I received, I'm glad I went with the UF. Either way, I get the feeling that I went with the right manufacturer and I'm looking forward to completing my T-Room.


----------



## Dirk44

I'm in the same situation, only days before place a order for UF or XD.

First : I change screen position to long side of the room now, wich means my new viewing distance is 8.5 and max 9.5 feet (because we the screen we be deeply curved) 

Set up is Sony VW 1100 (500h!) plus Isco 1.25 in Front, is this brigth enough for a 158" wide 21:9 UF Screen ? Or better go with XD and maybe see weaves?
What do you think ? Chris can you give comment ?

P.S. Wait for UHD BR and 4k at IFA Berlin to finalize this now. 

Greetings from germany dirk


----------



## chriscmore

Sitting ~9ft from a 158" wide image may be the new record holder, at 72 degree wide viewing. We normally advise some caution exceeding 45 degrees, as going beyond this trades off apparent resolution for immersion. That said, with the quality of the projected image improving, breaking past that is pretty common especially for 21:9/2.35/scope screens.

Recognizing your personal preference as the number one priority, I'd simply advise to round down to the next standard size of 150" wide. At that seating distance, I'd also use the Center Stage UF material, which the Sony will have no problem properly lighting up. The model number would be C150US. I calculate you'd have 19.4FtL if you can achieve 1200 lumens calibrated, not counting bulb age or lens transmittance.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## MikeyD360

Just want to say Chris - Thanks! 
Love my XD screen!


----------



## ckgolf

Ordered a precision 130" wide 2.35 centerstage xd screen this week. My theater build is wrapping up soon. Can't wait to light this sucker up! Viewing distance will be about 11.5'. 
I had a sample of falcons's horizon material also. I preferred the brightness of the Xd.


----------



## pgwalsh

ckgolf said:


> Ordered a precision 130" wide 2.35 centerstage xd screen this week. My theater build is wrapping up soon. Can't wait to light this sucker up! Viewing distance will be about 11.5'.
> I had a sample of falcons's horizon material also. I preferred the brightness of the Xd.


And your build thread is located?


----------



## ckgolf

pgwalsh said:


> And your build thread is located?


It's titled "The Vista" in the dedicated theater forum. I should link it in my signature. Haven't figured out how to do that yet? Anybody know?


----------



## ckgolf

pgwalsh said:


> And your build thread is located?


Now linked in signature


----------



## lovingdvd

chriscmore said:


> Sitting ~9ft from a 158" wide image may be the new record holder, at 72 degree wide viewing. We normally advise some caution exceeding 45 degrees, as going beyond this trades off apparent resolution for immersion. That said, with the quality of the projected image improving, breaking past that is pretty common especially for 21:9/2.35/scope screens...


Chris - is that advice about generally not exceeding 45 degrees due to a trade off in lower perceived resolution based on the assumption that it is a 1080p projector? I assume so, and that for a 4K projector (with 1080p upscaled to 4K or native 4k content) going past 45 or 50 degrees may be acceptable? I am planning on a 4K projector with 140" 2.40 XD screen and will be viewing from 12.5ft, which provides a 50 degree field of view.


----------



## chriscmore

lovingdvd said:


> Chris - is that advice about generally not exceeding 45 degrees due to a trade off in lower perceived resolution based on the assumption that it is a 1080p projector? I assume so, and that for a 4K projector (with 1080p upscaled to 4K or native 4k content) going past 45 or 50 degrees may be acceptable? I am planning on a 4K projector with 140" 2.40 XD screen and will be viewing from 12.5ft, which provides a 50 degree field of view.


True, the 45 degree viewing field is true for 1080 content. You can go into 45 to even 60 depending on the quality of the source material. Doug Blackburn from Widescreen Review routinely hits 60, but he has some of the most pristine 4k content available, from servers that Sony sends him. I still think frame rate is an issue, as 24fps is too juddery for me at massive viewing angles. I'm not sure where the fake-looking HFR content merges with larger viewing angles for a new normal film experience. It'll likely be an evolutionary drift.

Personal preference is top priority though, as immersion is a quality in and of itself. I simply raise the yellow card when folks break 45 degrees for scope, or 40-45 degrees for 16:9, so they know what's being traded off.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## deromax

ckgolf said:


> 130" wide 2.35 centerstage xd screen... Viewing distance will be about 11.5'.


I have the exact same layout (but DIY screen build) and it's totally fine, I wouldn't change anything!


----------



## chriscmore

Brad Horstkotte's theater in a garage was selected for September's Home Theater of the Month. This one is unique because it was built in an external garage (how's a 60ft airspace for isolation?), has a constant area ~2-ratio XD screen, and DIY speakers, subs and acoustic treatments. Also, this month features a video that Scott put together, which is I think a great addition to this popular series.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/2129266-ht-month-bradley-cinema.html

I was helping install in a theater yesterday and the contractors were getting excited when I explained that if you are willing to put some "Y" in the DIY, you can still hold onto reference performance while getting the cost down to reasonable levels. This is another great AVS example of a room that's likely punching at a level 10x its cost. Next month at CEDIA we get to see the opposite.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## lovingdvd

chriscmore said:


> ...Next month at CEDIA we get to see the opposite...


Great Chris. I look forward to meeting you at CEDIA. I am most interested in seeing a working TAM-2L motorized masking system when there. Its one thing to see these things on paper, but it would sure be great to see one in person, particularly how it opens and closes. Will this be a possibility? Also will you (or others, and if others, who?) show some projectors projecting on the Center Stage XD material?


----------



## chriscmore

lovingdvd said:


> Great Chris. I look forward to meeting you at CEDIA. I am most interested in seeing a working TAM-2L motorized masking system when there. Its one thing to see these things on paper, but it would sure be great to see one in person, particularly how it opens and closes. Will this be a possibility? Also will you (or others, and if others, who?) show some projectors projecting on the Center Stage XD material?


We'll have a small TAM on the floor display. Likely a T/B, but we're still tweaking things. Wisdom Audio will use an Enlightor-4K screen and Steinway Lyngdorf will use an XD in their active demos.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## lovingdvd

chriscmore said:


> We'll have a small TAM on the floor display. Likely a T/B, but we're still tweaking things. Wisdom Audio will use an Enlightor-4K screen and Steinway Lyngdorf will use an XD in their active demos.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


What's the difference between the T/B and T/L? "Tweaking things" - tweaking what - is T/B new or something?

Thanks for the heads-up about about Wisdom and Steinway - I just marked those on my CEDIA app as must-sees. 

EDIT: Will you also have examples of your fixed frames, such as the Reference and Series 2 and 3? Even if not full sized screens, it would be nice to see pieces of the frame with velvet covering. Also will you have any examples of your removable masking panels?


----------



## chriscmore

T/B = top/bottom masks, L = lateral or side masks.

Chris


----------



## lovingdvd

chriscmore said:


> T/B = top/bottom masks, L = lateral or side masks.
> 
> Chris


Thanks. Sorry I also added this question after the fact that you may have missed - Will you also have examples of your fixed frames, such as the Reference and Series 2 and 3? Even if not full sized screens, it would be nice to see pieces of the frame with velvet covering. Also will you have any examples of your removable masking panels?


----------



## Dirk44

Thank you all for sharing the knowledge !
I deceide to stay on the smaller side of the room and hold the 2.row and a view around 60' for the first row.
The minus screen is limited at 144" wide (wall to wall), curving still 10% 14,5" with Geobox and 1080p.

I will place my order at Chris maybe with a few friends together next week and give a report after it done here

Greetings dirk


----------



## Dirk44

Hello Chris,

i ready to order and send a mail to jon, still wait for the answer.
Now i see on your site, that Centerstage XD is out of Stock for 4 weeks 10/18 ???

Best regards dirk


----------



## Dirk44

Thanks for reply, i will report here End of October hopefully the screen is build !


----------



## KBMAN

ckgolf said:


> Now linked in signature


Hey! I'm trying to link my HToTM in my signature as well...how did you do that ckgolf ?


----------



## ckgolf

KBMAN said:


> Hey! I'm trying to link my HToTM in my signature as well...how did you do that ckgolf ?


copy the web address of your page. Go to User CP at top of page. click edit signature. 
Use this template and replace you with U. Replace my info with yours.
[youRL="http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2027913-vista.html"]My build- The Vista Viewing Room[/URL]


----------



## chriscmore

As a PSA, please make sure that if you are making plans to see Star Wars, or any other flat-screen film, that you in fact see it on a flat screen. As elementary as this seems, nothing will destroy the director's intent faster than displaying flat content on a domed screen. The geometry distortion is unwatchable. In this film, some scenes were filmed in IMAX and it may therefore be worth driving to a flat-screen IMAX cinema. However, a domed IMAX experience would be tragic. Our screens were used in the mastering of this film, and we'll advocate daily to help people strive for reference viewing.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Craig Peer

Great seeing you Chris. I love the new motorized masking system !!


----------



## ScottJ

Craig Peer said:


> Great seeing you Chris. I love the new motorized masking system !!


Link?


----------



## Freakquency

ScottJ said:


> Link?


Bottom of the page.

http://www.seymourav.com/masking.asp


----------



## ScottJ

Freakquency said:


> Bottom of the page.
> 
> http://www.seymourav.com/masking.asp


Their electric retractable screen masking is not new (despite the red "NEW!" on the page). I installed mine over two years ago. Was Craig possibly talking about something else?


----------



## Craig Peer

ScottJ said:


> Their electric retractable screen masking is not new (despite the red "NEW!" on the page). I installed mine over two years ago. Was Craig possibly talking about something else?


 
There is a video somewhere here on AVS - let me find it......




https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4PoZPYrxqj0


----------



## chriscmore

Here is Scott's video: 




Here is one from Rave with worse video and rambling me: 




Cheers,
Chris


----------



## pgwalsh

chriscmore said:


> Here is Scott's video:
> 
> Here is one from Rave with worse video and rambling me:
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


That's very cool, friggin awesome actually! :grin:


Will you do this in curved or is that pointless at this point?


----------



## chriscmore

pgwalsh said:


> That's very cool, friggin awesome actually! :grin:
> 
> 
> Will you do this in curved or is that pointless at this point?


It's technically pointless, as you'd really only need a curved screen with use of an anamorphic lens which would have you into a 2.37 screen instead. However, there are aesthetic benefits to curved such as an increased sense of immersion, which is one reason IMAX curves their very low-ratio screens. We'll do it sometime just for the mojo, but are working on other more practical products first.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## StevenC56

Hi Chris! Any more progress on retrofit masking solutions for your Center Stage retractables?


----------



## desertdome

At Rocky Mountain Audio Fest (RMAF) I setup and ran the JRiver/JTR Speakers room. We demo'd a Seymour Screen Excellence Series-3 frame with Enlightor-4K fabric. It was 16:9 and 126" diagonal. We used 16:9 since most of the content was concert Blu-rays. Chris had provided a T stand along with the frame and fabric.

We wanted a complete screen wall for the room. I attached a 4' piece of aluminum U channel to each side of the frame. The U channel went to the ceiling. Horizontally at the ceiling I used a 152" piece of angle aluminum that was screwed to the U channel. I attached a piece of velcro all the way across the angle aluminum.

On each side of the screen I hung a 19" wide piece of Millibel AT black backing that extended to the floor. I also hung a third piece of Millibel from the ceiling to the top of the 
screen. The Millibel had velcro that I used to attach to the angle aluminum. The Millibel was precision cut by SeymourAV and I use it in my own living room theater.

I have a piece of lycra velvet that is about 5' x 12' with grommets in the corners. I use it to cover my white ceiling at home when watching a movie. I wrapped the velvet around the T stand at the bottom and tightened it with a cord through the grommets. It covered from the screen to the floor and extended about 3' in front of the screen.

We "built" a multi-channel home theater with 5 JTR Speakers 210RT's, 2 Captivator 1400 subwoofers, HTPC, MOTU 1248, JVC DLA-RS67U, custom made projector stand, Seymour screen wall, and 13 GIK Acoustics room treatments in about 8 hours. 

The effect with the lights off was to have a completely black screen wall with a high contrast image provided by a JVC DLA-RS67U. I performed an ISF calibration on the projector and used a 3D LUT on the HTPC.

I took a picture with my cell phone with a light on:










Here is the projector at the back of the room:


----------



## cw5billwade

Did I hear that right $15k?


----------



## pgwalsh

cw5billwade said:


> Did I hear that right $15k?


That's what Scott said in the video. $15K for the 100" version.


----------



## RapalloAV

chriscmore said:


> Here is one from Rave with worse video and rambling me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNRFVgdkqRw
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris, make me a four way that's 150" curved and I'll buy it!
Ive been trying for ages to design a curved version with motorised top but struggled for a very long time.


----------



## skypop

Finally ordered my Seymour XD screen, i'm going from a fixed Elite screen to the AT Seymour. Only my center is going to be behind the screen,My mains are JBL Studio 590's. In my room I like to see my main L&R speakers plus it would put them to close together for my taste, the center is A JBL Studio 580. Screen size is the 110 which is the max I could go in my space but it's 126" Diagonal is bigger than the 120" diagonal Elite Screen that it's replacing,hopefully should have it by Thanksgiving wknd! My projector is the Sony VPL 40es, seat distance from the screen is 13.5 feet. Room is totally light controlled with black velvet covering the ceiling,screen wall and walls adjacent to the screen, Anybody go from an Elite Screen to A Seymour XD? Whats your opinions? Thanks for all the help i've gotten from this thread! Priceless.


----------



## Brymo

Hello! Can someone explain to me the benefits over Seymour over SilverTicket? I'm in research building mode and I was set on SilverTicket but research and seeing someones Seymour screen in person made me question my decision on the SilverTicket.

I'm going with a fixed AT 2.35 screen, projector was planned to be a Sony HW55, but now that I'm stuck on 2.35, I'm leaning towards the AE8000 for the motor zoom/focus.

I see there are a couple different options for screens, whats the difference in them? I see Premier and Precision, and XD/UF options. What are the difference in these? 

The price is significantly higher than the $400 SilverTicket, so whats the difference?

Thank you!


----------



## Brymo

Hello! Can someone explain to me the benefits over Seymour over SilverTicket? I'm in research building mode and I was set on SilverTicket but research and seeing someones Seymour screen in person made me question my decision on the SilverTicket.

I'm going with a fixed AT 2.35 screen, projector was planned to be a Sony HW55, but now that I'm stuck on 2.35, I'm leaning towards the AE8000 for the motor zoom/focus.

I see there are a couple different options for screens, whats the difference in them? I see Premier and Precision, and XD/UF options. What are the difference in these? 

The price is significantly higher than the $400 SilverTicket, so whats the difference?

Thank you!


----------



## chriscmore

They look like they're simply importing in the typical stuff (e.g. Grandview, Elite, Monoprice, Accuscreens, etc). I've not evaluated their material but you could get samples and compare yourself. Here is AccuCal's report as well: http://www.accucalhd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf

If budget is an issue, I'd recommend DIY so that you can maintain reference screen performance.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Dirk44

Hi there,

i just wanna say thank you here. Spec. Jon for the easy order and shipping service ! 
I have now fixed my 147 inch wide (wall to wall) x 61 inch high screen Centerstage XD.
The Fabric work very well with the Sony VW 1100.
I build it deeply curved 15 inch with the support of Nils aka Follgott. Amazing

Greetings from germany dirk


----------



## skypop

Are there any videos on YouTube or wherever that show A Screen being put together? Just waiting on my screen to be delivered hopefully by thanksgiving.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pgwalsh

Dirk44 said:


> Hi there,
> 
> i just wanna say thank you here. Spec. Jon for the easy order and shipping service !
> I have now fixed my 147 inch wide (wall to wall) x 61 inch high screen Centerstage XD.
> The Fabric work very well with the Sony VW 1100.
> I build it deeply curved 15 inch with the support of Nils aka Follgott. Amazing
> 
> Greetings from germany dirk


It didn't really happen without pictures.


----------



## BrolicBeast

skypop said:


> Are there any videos on YouTube or wherever that show A Screen being put together? Just waiting on my screen to be delivered hopefully by thanksgiving.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Check PM....I sent you a video I made a few years ago on screen assembly.


----------



## skypop

Thanks,appreciate it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirk44

pgwalsh said:


> It didn't really happen without pictures.


here we go


----------



## pgwalsh

Dirk44 said:


> here we go


That's a serious curve. You did a nice job.


----------



## lovehathi

Hi hi chris, if we buy screen material from u . is it hard to fit in another motorized screen, as i am in Ireland so importing whole scree would be very costly., so iam thinking to buy one cheap motorized screen here and replace its material


----------



## Fishtank

Hey guys quick fact check. I can't get a great hold on why you would choose the "DIY" UF material over the XD besides cost and it sounds like ease of build. 

I was going to order XD under these conditions:

Epson 5030UB 
100-110" screen at optimum viewing height
8-12' seating distance (1 couch, no need for off angle)
Room is about 12 x 16
Dark grey walls, white ceiling
Full light control
All HD content games and movies.


I just wanted to make sure I wasn't mis-reading something and the new UF wasn't better suited for my environment than the XD.


----------



## nathan_h

chriscmore said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by *mv038856*
> 
> Hi,
> I was wondering what the Center Stage XD's effect on polarization is.
> It is obvious that it does not maintain polarization, as it is not a silver screen. But compared to a non-woven screen, does the XD diffuse polarization more?
> Any real live experience or Chris' official take on polarization on the XD are welcome!
> Thanks!
> Markus
> 
> 
> Correct that it does not maintain polarization, as only silver screens do. The XD diffuses like any other Lambertian surface, or near-unity white screen. The weave doesn't affect the polarization response because once the lights hits the white pvc, it uniformly scatters back.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Since there are quite a few non silver screens that retain some level of polarization, and I am hoping to AVOID any retention of polarization (due the interaction of my JVC with my glasses, any retention of polarization is a problem), I am wondering whether anyone has measured the EN4K material? 

Here are bunch of examples of screens that you would think would not retain polarization but that actually do:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/191-3d-displays/1300238-discussion-screens-3d-projection.html

I guess the good news is that the XD material doesn't. But there are surprising results, like the original Stewart/StudioTek 130, which retains quite a bit of polarization, likely due to the coating which gives it the slight gain.

I realize such screens nowhere near retaining polarization for systems that would require it. But since so many screens inadvertently retain a little polarization, I've learned not to assume anything, and am wondering whether anyone has tested the EN4K material?


----------



## nathan_h

Fishtank said:


> Hey guys quick fact check. I can't get a great hold on why you would choose the "DIY" UF material over the XD besides cost and it sounds like ease of build.
> 
> I was going to order XD under these conditions:
> 
> Epson 5030UB
> 100-110" screen at optimum viewing height
> 8-12' seating distance (1 couch, no need for off angle)
> Room is about 12 x 16
> Dark grey walls, white ceiling
> Full light control
> All HD content games and movies.
> 
> 
> I just wanted to make sure I wasn't mis-reading something and the new UF wasn't better suited for my environment than the XD.


You should really get a sample of both and try them out. The UF will have less pattern to it, but less gain, as well.


----------



## Fishtank

nathan_h said:


> You should really get a sample of both and try them out. The UF will have less pattern to it, but less gain, as well.


I know I really should! I really need to get on with this though well before xmas... and samples to Canada and getting the actual product from the border etc will chew up some time.

You know what, you've actually talked me into the UF as I bounced it around my head a bit more 

I have no experience with AT fabric and A/V quality. I'll get the UF as it's cheaper and I can simply staple it. Form a real opinion and decide if I need more from there.

My projector is bright, the image is small, and I have light control to deal with the lower gain. Also the increased audio attenuation of the UF is dealt with by calibrating the speakers so I've read......... it shouldn't be a huge problem.


----------



## chriscmore

lovehathi said:


> Hi hi chris, if we buy screen material from u . is it hard to fit in another motorized screen, as i am in Ireland so importing whole scree would be very costly., so iam thinking to buy one cheap motorized screen here and replace its material


I don't know of a responsible way to replace the material in a motorized with a DIY piece. We spend weeks stitching velvet and building the tension systems with the end result sometimes weighing 80 lbs+ (non-masking version). Maybe you can simply paint borders and somehow attach it to the roller and weight bar but we don't have any experience on that.

Chris


----------



## cw5billwade

Brymo said:


> Hello! Can someone explain to me the benefits over Seymour over SilverTicket? I'm in research building mode and I was set on SilverTicket but research and seeing someones Seymour screen in person made me question my decision on the SilverTicket.
> 
> I'm going with a fixed AT 2.35 screen, projector was planned to be a Sony HW55, but now that I'm stuck on 2.35, I'm leaning towards the AE8000 for the motor zoom/focus.
> 
> I see there are a couple different options for screens, whats the difference in them? I see Premier and Precision, and XD/UF options. What are the difference in these?
> 
> The price is significantly higher than the $400 SilverTicket, so whats the difference?
> 
> Thank you!





chriscmore said:


> They look like they're simply importing in the typical stuff (e.g. Grandview, Elite, Monoprice, Accuscreens, etc). I've not evaluated their material but you could get samples and compare yourself. Here is AccuCal's report as well: http://www.accucalhd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf
> 
> If budget is an issue, I'd recommend DIY so that you can maintain reference screen performance.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris





skypop said:


> Are there any videos on YouTube or wherever that show A Screen being put together? Just waiting on my screen to be delivered hopefully by thanksgiving.


I did mine DIY and ended up with a little over $500 in it. I have a 126" wide 2.0:1 screen which is around 136" DIA check out my build thread.


----------



## Opethion

nathan_h said:


> You should really get a sample of both and try them out. The UF will have less pattern to it, but less gain, as well.





Fishtank said:


> I know I really should!


 
Warning: Don't expect the actual XD to have the same quality as the sample you will get. I got a very good sample, which is very evenly woven, and which would have been perfect at a 12' viewing distance. But the actual screen was relatively unevenly woven. It had less gain and irregularities in the weave that I can easily see with a bright picture at 12' distance. I will have to replace it with another product. Seymour AV says that they do quality controls for color, thickness, and openness of the XD, but not for this kind of irregularities. So, if your unlucky, you will not get the same quality as the sample and the weave becomes visible at 12' (or even more, depending on your vision, of course).


----------



## nathan_h

Opethion said:


> Warning: Don't expect the actual XD to have the same quality as the sample you will get. I got a very good sample, which is very evenly woven, and which would have been perfect at a 12' viewing distance. But the actual screen was relatively unevenly woven. It had less gain and irregularities in the weave that I can easily see with a bright picture at 12' distance. I will have to replace it with another product. Seymour AV says that they do quality controls for color, thickness, and openness of the XD, but not for this kind of irregularities. So, if your unlucky, you will not get the same quality as the sample and the weave becomes visible at 12' (or even more, depending on your vision, of course).



Thats disappointing. Do you have a photo you can share? Its hard to picture that.


----------



## nathan_h

Anyone using the EN4K screen with JVC to watch 3D? I'm looking for clues regarding which glasses to get, and it depends a lot on the screen itself. 

The JVC, while an active shutter glasses system, does have distinct polarization to what it displays. It's a feature of the panels. 

And if that polarization (which is horizontal) is retained by the screen (which, for example, several Stewart positive gain screens have done, over the years, due to their optical coating) then one needs to have the relatively rare and more expensive horizontally polarized 3d active shutter glasses.

On the other hand, screens that are truly lambertian and don't retain polarization allow one to use after market glasses that have vertical polarization, without negative consequences. The difference in price is nearly 10x, so it's a non trivial variable, imo.

I have seen ONE report about the EN4K material, and am hoping it's an anomaly (though that's a very long shot). Any other experience here?



jstach500 said:


> I had a set of the standard (i.e., not horizontally polarized for JVC) Xpand 105 glasses that I used with my EN4K screen. I have also used Panasonic glasses with it. The screen does retain a fair amount of polarization. I have a hard time quantifying it, as I have not conducted measurements on it. But it is significant enough that I am considering purchasing the horizontally polarized version of the Xpands. If I turn my head from vertical to look at the screen from a 90 degree angle, the brightness noticeably increases.


----------



## ellisr63

Opethion said:


> Warning: Don't expect the actual XD to have the same quality as the sample you will get. I got a very good sample, which is very evenly woven, and which would have been perfect at a 12' viewing distance. But the actual screen was relatively unevenly woven. It had less gain and irregularities in the weave that I can easily see with a bright picture at 12' distance. I will have to replace it with another product. Seymour AV says that they do quality controls for color, thickness, and openness of the XD, but not for this kind of irregularities. So, if your unlucky, you will not get the same quality as the sample and the weave becomes visible at 12' (or even more, depending on your vision, of course).


Sorry to hear that you had a problem with your screen...mine is perfect.


----------



## skypop

Hope I don't have any issues with my screen,I'm taking my elite screen down this wknd. So when the Seymour gets here it can go right up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidK442

Opethion said:


> Warning: Don't expect the actual XD to have the same quality as the sample you will get. I got a very good sample, which is very evenly woven, and which would have been perfect at a 12' viewing distance. But the actual screen was relatively unevenly woven. It had less gain and irregularities in the weave.


I have been hanging out on this and other screen forums and I believe this is the first such "quality" problem I have seen reported with the Seymour stuff.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Same here. First ever negative comment I've heard in that regard.

Gary


----------



## skypop

Good to hear, but that's one of the reasons I bought this screen. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## deromax

I have never heard of such issues with Seymour screen. i have built two. Maybe you got the end of a roll or something. Have you asked for an exchange?


----------



## ellisr63

deromax said:


> I have never heard of such issues with Seymour screen. i have built two. Maybe you got the end of a roll or something. Have you asked for an exchange?


That is what I would have asked for.


----------



## Opethion

nathan_h said:


> Thats disappointing. Do you have a photo you can share? Its hard to picture that.


Below is a picture with both weaves against a black backing. Depending on the incident angle of the light and depending on which side of the XD is up, the irregularites in the weave look different. In a normal home theater setup, both horizontal and vertical lines are visible. This is not the case with the sample. The picture mainly shows the obviously different quality of the weave. E.g. the horizontal dark lines (arrays of bigger sized holes) are only there in the actual XD screen, not in the XD sample. It is also obvious that sample has a slightly higher gain because it is more densely woven (I don't care about that, though).



deromax said:


> Have you asked for an exchange?


First I wanted to wait for a better batch of the XD. In the end, I decided to go for an alternative product anyway. I didn't even ask for a refund. To be clear: I am very happy with the Fidelio velvet (incredibly black stuff!) and the black speaker grill cloth from Seymour, which I also got. But the XD screen was a disappointment because of the worse quality than the sample. There is no point in getting a sample if the actual product will differ so much that the weave will become visible.


----------



## nathan_h

Thanks for sharing. I can see where in theaters with a seating distance beyond the visible structure, it could be a non issue, but that within a certain distance, that is going to be problematic.


----------



## mdandeka

Hi Chris or anyone who can help,

This is what I am planning, please let me know if this will work:

Projector: *JVC DLA-550R*
Screen: *Seymour Center Stage XD Acoustically transparent*.
Mounting: A false 'screen' wall to be built.
Format: 2.35:1
Throw range: 18ft -to-20ft.

I need suggestion on size of the screen. 
*Would a 160" diagonal work (viewable 63" by 147")?*

Please let me know. Thanks!


----------



## Opethion

nathan_h said:


> I can see where in theaters with a seating distance beyond the visible structure, it could be a non issue, but that within a certain distance, that is going to be problematic.


Absolutely. From 18 ft distance it's no problem for my 20/20 vision, but from 12 ft it's annoying.


----------



## turls

Opethion said:


> First I wanted to wait for a better batch of the XD. In the end, I decided to go for an alternative product anyway. I didn't even ask for a refund. To be clear: I am very happy with the Fidelio velvet (incredibly black stuff!) and the black speaker grill cloth from Seymour, which I also got. But the XD screen was a disappointment because of the worse quality than the sample. There is no point in getting a sample if the actual product will differ so much that the weave will become visible.


But the point is that things happen. Your screen could be considered defective as it should match the sample. I don't understand why you didn't give them a chance to make it right, either by refund or exchange.


----------



## cw5billwade

Mine is perfect and I sit at 10' from screen. Also I was tod by Jon that anly the inside of the rool is inspected. That you could use either side but only the inside is inspected.


----------



## ellisr63

Opethion said:


> Absolutely. From 18 ft distance it's no problem for my 20/20 vision, but from 12 ft it's annoying.


This is the first case I have seen in the forum, and I would have assumed that if it was a problem others would have complained. Yours must be a defective batch.
I sit 12' from a 195" diagonal scope screen, and I don't have that problem with 20/20 vision. You should return it for an exchange. I don't understand why you are not returning it, and purchasing elsewhere. I would ask for a return, and also ask them to check it before they ship it to you due to the problem you had. I don't think the answer is buying another screen, but it is your money.


----------



## mdandeka

Any feedback to my request?

_Hi Chris or anyone who can help,

This is what I am planning, please let me know if this will work:

Projector: JVC DLA-550R
Screen: Seymour Center Stage XD Acoustically transparent.
Mounting: A false 'screen' wall to be built.
Format: 2.35:1
Throw range: 18ft -to-20ft.

I need suggestion on size of the screen. 
Would a 160" diagonal work (viewable 63" by 147")?

Please let me know. Thanks!_


----------



## nathan_h

mdandeka said:


> Any feedback to my request?
> 
> _Hi Chris or anyone who can help,
> 
> This is what I am planning, please let me know if this will work:
> 
> Projector: JVC DLA-550R
> Screen: Seymour Center Stage XD Acoustically transparent.
> Mounting: A false 'screen' wall to be built.
> Format: 2.35:1
> Throw range: 18ft -to-20ft.
> 
> I need suggestion on size of the screen.
> Would a 160" diagonal work (viewable 63" by 147")?
> 
> Please let me know. Thanks!_


Possibly not bright enough. Go here, and for lumens enter 50% of the spec (which is about what you'll get on a calibrated projector with a little age on the lamp) and enter 1.0 gain for the screen (which is about what XD measures at in many real world situations). I'm guessing you won't reach 14ftl in brightness which is what you want. If it comes up below 10, I strongly recommend you consider a smaller screen or a brighter projector.


----------



## chriscmore

nathan_h said:


> Anyone using the EN4K screen with JVC to watch 3D? I'm looking for clues regarding which glasses to get, and it depends a lot on the screen itself.
> 
> The JVC, while an active shutter glasses system, does have distinct polarization to what it displays. It's a feature of the panels.
> 
> And if that polarization (which is horizontal) is retained by the screen (which, for example, several Stewart positive gain screens have done, over the years, due to their optical coating) then one needs to have the relatively rare and more expensive horizontally polarized 3d active shutter glasses.
> 
> On the other hand, screens that are truly lambertian and don't retain polarization allow one to use after market glasses that have vertical polarization, without negative consequences. The difference in price is nearly 10x, so it's a non trivial variable, imo.
> 
> I have seen ONE report about the EN4K material, and am hoping it's an anomaly (though that's a very long shot). Any other experience here?
> 
> 
> 
> jstach500 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a set of the standard (i.e., not horizontally polarized for JVC) Xpand 105 glasses that I used with my EN4K screen. I have also used Panasonic glasses with it. The screen does retain a fair amount of polarization. I have a hard time quantifying it, as I have not conducted measurements on it. But it is significant enough that I am considering purchasing the horizontally polarized version of the Xpands. If I turn my head from vertical to look at the screen from a 90 degree angle, the brightness noticeably increases.
Click to expand...

I don't have a polarity retention specification to quote you, but JVC's demonstration facility for UK exclusively uses the Enlightor-4k screen material.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## mdandeka

Thanks for your advice nathan_h. How can I enter the lumens on the calculator you pointed me to?


----------



## skypop

Mounted my new Seymour XD screen last night,picture is much better than I had with the Elite Screen I had. Sitting 13.5' from screen and I don't see anything but a great picture. I put a JBL Studio 580 behind the screen for the center channel,the sound is much better with the speaker behind the screen. If I had enough room I would of put the left and right behind the screen also but there's a beam right above the left speaker so that would of had the speakers to close together for my taste. Overall very happy with the product and delivery was only 2 weeks from when ordered.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skypop

The screen is 126" diagonal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nathan_h

chriscmore said:


> I don't have a polarity retention specification to quote you, but JVC's demonstration facility for UK exclusively uses the Enlightor-4k screen material.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris



Well thats because its an excellent screen!

But they also use jvc glasses. Which are polarized in the same direction as the projector. So if the screen preserves polarization there is no problem.

The problem is with third party glasses that are all polarized opposite from the projector. If the screen preserves some polarization, there will be brightness drop off. 

Im solving it by buying jvc glasses.


----------



## nathan_h

mdandeka said:


> Thanks for your advice nathan_h. How can I enter the lumens on the calculator you pointed me to?



Looks like they have changed it up. Just divide the end result by 2 and you will be safe.


----------



## lovingdvd

Opethion said:


> Below is a picture with both weaves against a black backing. Depending on the incident angle of the light and depending on which side of the XD is up, the irregularites in the weave look different. In a normal home theater setup, both horizontal and vertical lines are visible. This is not the case with the sample. The picture mainly shows the obviously different quality of the weave. E.g. the horizontal dark lines (arrays of bigger sized holes) are only there in the actual XD screen, not in the XD sample. It is also obvious that sample has a slightly higher gain because it is more densely woven (I don't care about that, though).
> 
> 
> 
> First I wanted to wait for a better batch of the XD. In the end, I decided to go for an alternative product anyway. I didn't even ask for a refund. To be clear: I am very happy with the Fidelio velvet (incredibly black stuff!) and the black speaker grill cloth from Seymour, which I also got. But the XD screen was a disappointment because of the worse quality than the sample. There is no point in getting a sample if the actual product will differ so much that the weave will become visible.


I am wondering if @chriscmore has seen this and your screenshot above of the differences between your sample and the screen you actually received. Would be great to hear his take on it.


----------



## DigitalAV

Hello, friends! I'm so sorry, but my searching skills have failed me...

What is the minimum distance needed between speaker fronts and the EN4K?

I swear I thought I read somewhere it only needs a few inches, but am not finding it. TIA!


----------



## ellisr63

DigitalAV said:


> Hello, friends! I'm so sorry, but my searching skills have failed me...
> 
> What is the minimum distance needed between speaker fronts and the EN4K?
> 
> I swear I thought I read somewhere it only needs a few inches, but am not finding it. TIA!


My XD is about 1" from my speaker fronts.


----------



## nathan_h

DigitalAV said:


> Hello, friends! I'm so sorry, but my searching skills have failed me...
> 
> What is the minimum distance needed between speaker fronts and the EN4K?
> 
> I swear I thought I read somewhere it only needs a few inches, but am not finding it. TIA!


You are correct.


----------



## mdandeka

nathan_h said:


> Looks like they have changed it up. Just divide the end result by 2 and you will be safe.


Thanks Nathan, I just put in my order for a 160" diagonal curved 2.35 AT Seymour XD screen. James from Jamestown screens is going to build it.


----------



## mdandeka

Hi Chris (chriscmore), 

I just placed my order for a 160" diagonal curved 2.35 AT Seymour XD screen. It's viewable area is 63" x 147" and total size with frame is of 70" by 154". James from Jamestown screens is going to build it. He'll call you on Monday Nov 30th to place the order for material. I'm excited and eagerly looking forward for my first screen. I have also placed an order for JVC DLA-RS400U yesterday. I plan to get a Panamorph lens (Phoenix is the cheapest that I am considering) once the entire setup is done.

My room is about 24 ft. (depth for theater viewing) x 28 ft. (Screen wall section I have allocated is 16 ft.). Projector lens to the false screen wall that is yet to be built will be about 18 ft to 20 ft range). I have attached the media room floorplan picture for your reference. Hope the screen size will work with the projector. My calculations show that it will works. James from Jamestown also said so. Any comment?


----------



## nathan_h

mdandeka said:


> Thanks Nathan, I just put in my order for a 160" diagonal curved 2.35 AT Seymour XD screen. James from Jamestown screens is going to build it.



Congrats. 

That would be too dim for me. I find the max is more like 120" but if you get one of the brighter projectors or arent trying to reach 14ftl it could work fine.


----------



## mdandeka

nathan_h said:


> Congrats.
> 
> That would be too dim for me. I find the max is more like 120" but if you get one of the brighter projectors or arent trying to reach 14ftl it could work fine.


Yes, the result could be ~10 or 12 ftl. But this is the screen size I want. So, let's see how it turns out. May be a bit dim not sure. 
-mdandeka


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

It might be relatively dim but it will look fine to start with - over the years I've found many people viewing with under 10fL and the image looks fine (obviously not as bright or at the recommended standard, but better than you'd think). One guy had around 3fL in his fully light controlled room and was perfectly happy - it certainly didn't look as dim as it was. I used to run 9 to 12fL with DVD (before HD came along) which was very cinematic - many commercial theatres run the lamps dimmer to conserve electricity costs so it had a similar 'look'. It's not right of course, but it does look more like cinema than an image that is too bright which can look processed and more like video. You won't have that problem though.

You're going to need around 1100 lumens to get to 14fL, You'll just need to change lamps sooner and a little more regularly, but if you're enjoying your set up, that's what counts. With projectors getting brighter these days (like the new JVCs), you may find the next pj will have more than enough lumens fr your screen.

Gary


----------



## mdandeka

Thanks Gary for the detailed response. I ordered the new JVC DLA RS400U which has a 1700 lumens lamp. As you know, the screen I ordered is a Jamestown with Seymour Center Stage XD acoustically transparent material. The 2.35:1 format screen size is 160" diagnoal with viewable 63" x 147". With throw distance of 18ft to 20 ft. range what do you think the ftL will be? Thanks.


----------



## ellisr63

mdandeka said:


> Thanks Nathan, I just put in my order for a 160" diagonal curved 2.35 AT Seymour XD screen. James from Jamestown screens is going to build it.


I hope you are not in a hurry. When we bought our Jamestown screen for our last projector. he said it would be 2 weeks, and it took over 2 months. I had no problem with the screen, but if you look in the forums it is common to take months to get your screen.


----------



## ellisr63

mdandeka said:


> Hi Chris (chriscmore),
> 
> I just placed my order for a 160" diagonal curved 2.35 AT Seymour XD screen. It's viewable area is 63" x 147" and total size with frame is of 70" by 154". James from Jamestown screens is going to build it. He'll call you on Monday Nov 30th to place the order for material. I'm excited and eagerly looking forward for my first screen. I have also placed an order for JVC DLA-RS400U yesterday. I plan to get a Panamorph lens (Phoenix is the cheapest that I am considering) once the entire setup is done.
> 
> My room is about 24 ft. (depth for theater viewing) x 28 ft. (Screen wall section I have allocated is 16 ft.). Projector lens to the false screen wall that is yet to be built will be about 18 ft to 20 ft range). I have attached the media room floorplan picture for your reference. Hope the screen size will work with the projector. My calculations show that it will works. James from Jamestown also said so. Any comment?


Does your projector have ECC... if not you might want to look for a used or "B" stock UH-480 lens. I was ready to bite the bullet and get the Phoenix lens too until I found a "B" stock UH-480 for a little over the original Phoenix deal.


Why are you not building your own screen with the SeymourAV material...it is very easy to do.


----------



## ellisr63

Gary Lightfoot said:


> It might be relatively dim but it will look fine to start with - over the years I've found many people viewing with under 10fL and the image looks fine (obviously not as bright or at the recommended standard, but better than you'd think). One guy had around 3fL in his fully light controlled room and was perfectly happy - it certainly didn't look as dim as it was. I used to run 9 to 12fL with DVD (before HD came along) which was very cinematic - many commercial theatres run the lamps dimmer to conserve electricity costs so it had a similar 'look'. It's not right of course, but it does look more like cinema than an image that is too bright which can look processed and more like video. You won't have that problem though.
> 
> You're going to need around 1100 lumens to get to 14fL, You'll just need to change lamps sooner and a little more regularly, but if you're enjoying your set up, that's what counts. With projectors getting brighter these days (like the new JVCs), you may find the next pj will have more than enough lumens fr your screen.
> 
> Gary


We are running the ae8000 on a 195" scope screen and the picture looks great with the UH-480 lens (picture is now brighter than it was using the zoom function). We have our front row 12' from the screen, and i think the reason we don't have eye strain is due to the FL being lower. When we had the BenQ w1070, and the Jamestown 134" 16x9 screen we had eyestrain at around 14' feet.


----------



## loganross

*JVC screen adjustment setting for XD, UF, and 4K*

Hi,

The JVC projectors have a setting where you choose the # that corresponds to your specific screen brand and model. JVC has the list online at:

http://www3.jvckenwood.com/english/projector/screen/

I don't see Seymour listed. For those of you that have a JVC projector, can you tell me how you configure this setting?

THX


----------



## Lynkage

Does the UF have a front and a back? I am ready to staple the material to the frame but I am unsure if there is a proper direction.

Thanks


----------



## chriscmore

Lynkage said:


> Does the UF have a front and a back? I am ready to staple the material to the frame but I am unsure if there is a proper direction.
> 
> Thanks


You need to use the inside surface of the roll, as this is the smooth side. The outside surface is stripy and won't look good.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Lynkage

Thanks for the reply!!


----------



## skypop

skypop said:


> Mounted my new Seymour XD screen last night,picture is much better than I had with the Elite Screen I had. Sitting 13.5' from screen and I don't see anything but a great picture. I put a JBL Studio 580 behind the screen for the center channel,the sound is much better with the speaker behind the screen. If I had enough room I would of put the left and right behind the screen also but there's a beam right above the left speaker so that would of had the speakers to close together for my taste. Overall very happy with the product and delivery was only 2 weeks from when ordered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Since this picture was taken I put down a black carpet in the room,truly a black hole now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jtavan

Opethion said:


> Below is a picture with both weaves against a black backing. Depending on the incident angle of the light and depending on which side of the XD is up, the irregularites in the weave look different. In a normal home theater setup, both horizontal and vertical lines are visible. This is not the case with the sample. The picture mainly shows the obviously different quality of the weave. E.g. the horizontal dark lines (arrays of bigger sized holes) are only there in the actual XD screen, not in the XD sample. It is also obvious that sample has a slightly higher gain because it is more densely woven (I don't care about that, though).


For what it's worth, I just received a sample of XD along with a couple other screen materials, and the sample exhibits just this irregularity. I really need the gain of XD or something similar, but if the actual screen came with this irregularity it would drive me bonkers. It appears as dark diagonal lines across the surface at a distance.


----------



## chriscmore

jtavan said:


> For what it's worth, I just received a sample of XD along with a couple other screen materials, and the sample exhibits just this irregularity. I really need the gain of XD or something similar, but if the actual screen came with this irregularity it would drive me bonkers. It appears as dark diagonal lines across the surface at a distance.


Then you are accessing the XD's material characteristics beyond its intended use (>10ft viewing). You should instead evaluate the Center Stage UF material (


----------



## jtavan

chriscmore said:


> Then you are accessing the XD's material characteristics beyond its intended use (>10ft viewing). You should instead evaluate the Center Stage UF material (


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

A UK reviewer has an 8.5 feet wide 2.5 AT screen using the enlightor 4k material and he sits 8 feet from the screen with no visible weave. The UF should be fine too. The XD may work if the image isn't too bright, but it would be a gamble unless you tested beforehand.

A more accurate way to guestimate the fL of your screen, is to find an accurate review that has measured the lumens (ideally at both ends of the zoom), and divide the screen area (sqr feet) into the lumens, then multiply by the measured gain of the screen. Then you're using real values and not relying on wildly different online calculators. Or buy a light meter and measure at the screen.

Gary


----------



## jtavan

Gary Lightfoot said:


> A more accurate way to guestimate the fL of your screen, is to find an accurate review that has measured the lumens (ideally at both ends of the zoom), and divide the screen area (sqr feet) into the lumens, then multiply by the measured gain of the screen. Then you're using real values and not relying on wildly different online calculators. Or buy a light meter and measure at the screen.


Thanks for that process, Gary. I actually was able to find a thread here with measured light output of the RS400, and it sounds like with my screen size, and using lens memory zoom, I'd still have >16fL with a 0.8-gain material in low-lamp mode. That makes the decision easier!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

That sounds like you should be fine, even with some lamp dimming with age. 

Gary


----------



## chriscmore

jtavan said:


> Hi, Chris,
> 
> This would appear to be batch-to-batch variation, as the XD screen I saw a month or so ago did not exhibit the weave irregularity. For what it's worth, the pattern of lines formed by the irregularity was quite visible at 10'-12' as an overall texture of lines. I am assured by Jon that this is not necessarily the way all XD screens look, and I'm nearly ready to order a retractable/masking 2.35:1 screen of this material, on the assumption that it doesn't all have this pattern.
> 
> The UF material has a nice, even texture and pure white color - I suspect it would also work, if I have enough light. The Enlightor-4K has a lovely fine texture as well - I am sure it would work at short distances. The color balance appears different from the other two materials, though not so much that I think it would be any problem at all to correct it.
> 
> I've used a couple different projector calculators to try to figure out how much gain I need. I'll be doing a 130" wide 2.35:1 screen, projecting from just over 15' away (minimum throw for the JVC RS400 projector). One calculator estimates 22ftL for a 0.8-gain screen, the other estimates 10ftL. Quite a difference! If the former calculator is correct, I could use the Enlightor-4K material and simply not worry about texture at all. If the latter is correct, I'd be better off with XD. Any idea which is closer to right?


If you're within any batch to batch variation, then by definition you're outside of the designed intended purpose of the material in the first place. As Jon suggested, we can snapshot a batch (roll? piece?) and get approval prior to construction, but that entire endeavor is activity beyond what the XD is designed for. What would your regularity spec be and how would you quantify that for production control?

That fact that anything is "quite visible" at 10-12' disqualifies the material for you. I'd use 0.8 gain for the UF gain calculation, and don't forget that if you're using the zoom method to size your screen area for 130"w 16:9 since that's what your panel will be shooting out. Start with the best-picture lumens you think you'll end up with, / 66 sq.ft. * 0.8 gain. Hopefully you can get 16-20FtL (~1320 lumens min). If not, iterate the system accordingly.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## rboster

I have a question on the manual masking panels. I see the bottom fits in a groove btw the screen and the frame. The top of the panel has magnets....do you have to insert the top in a similar type groove btw the screen material and frame or do the magnets simply hold the panel in-place btw the frame and the top of the panel? 

I have an SMX screen with manual masking. They used grooves built into the back of the frame...you would slide the bottom in and then insert the top into the groove on top, then slide the panel towards the sides of the frame and it would sit on all three sides in these grooves built into the frame. What I didn't like was having to maneuver the panel into place and back of the hand rubbing against the screen material to get it in the groove/channel. I never noticed any negative effect with the hand coming into contact with the screen material...but less contact the better. I found myself using the panels less and less....even though the impact was noticeable with the panels in place.


What's the experience of real world usage?

Thanks
Ron

PS: Would love to support this Iowa based company (being an IA native now in KC). ...even though I'm sure they are Clone fans  ).


----------



## nathan_h

Gary Lightfoot said:


> A UK reviewer has an 8.5 feet wide 2.5 AT screen using the enlightor 4k material and he sits 8 feet from the screen with no visible weave. The UF should be fine too. The XD may work if the image isn't too bright, but it would be a gamble unless you tested beforehand.
> 
> A more accurate way to guestimate the fL of your screen, is to find an accurate review that has measured the lumens (ideally at both ends of the zoom), and divide the screen area (sqr feet) into the lumens, then multiply by the measured gain of the screen. Then you're using real values and not relying on wildly different online calculators. Or buy a light meter and measure at the screen.
> 
> Gary


Yep, agreed.

FYI, I have a rs500, and sit 8.5 feet from a 8 foot wide 2.37:1 EN4K screen, using the zoom method to fill the screen, and I have more than enough brightness to reach reference white at 15ftl, on rec 709 material, calibrated correctly, with the iris closed to -11. And I do not see weave.

I realize this projector is a little brighter than what the OP is going to use, and my screen is a lot smaller. But I also sit a lot closer.

I would really be surprised if one can see pattern in XD material sitting at 15' plus away as the OP indicates he plans to do.


----------



## jtavan

nathan_h said:


> Yep, agreed.
> 
> FYI, I have a rs500, and sit 8.5 feet from a 8 foot wide 2.37:1 EN4K screen, using the zoom method to fill the screen, and I have more than enough brightness to reach reference white at 15ftl, on rec 709 material, calibrated correctly, with the iris closed to -11. And I do not see weave.
> 
> I realize this projector is a little brighter than what the OP is going to use, and my screen is a lot smaller. But I also sit a lot closer.
> 
> I would really be surprised if one can see pattern in XD material sitting at 15' plus away as the OP indicates he plans to do.


Likely I'll be sitting a little closer than 15', actually, given the room layout. The EN4K material is super fine textured - I can't imagine anyone sitting any reasonable viewing distance from it and seeing weave. I'm leaning that direction at the moment, assuming that the RS400 has plenty of brightness for it.


----------



## skypop

jtavan said:


> Likely I'll be sitting a little closer than 15', actually, given the room layout. The EN4K material is super fine textured - I can't imagine anyone sitting any reasonable viewing distance from it and seeing weave. I'm leaning that direction at the moment, assuming that the RS400 has plenty of brightness for it.



I sit 13.5' from A 126" diagonal XD screen using a Sony 40es and I don't see any weave. This is in A totally light controlled,dark grey paint,black velvet on the walls and ceiling all the way back to the projector which sits 15' from the screen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## deromax

jtavan said:


> I'll be doing a 130" wide 2.35:1 screen, projecting from just over 15' away (minimum throw for the JVC RS400 projector). One calculator estimates 22ftL for a 0.8-gain screen, the other estimates 10ftL. Quite a difference!


I have almost the same setting (screen size, distance) and the light output is about just right with my Panny 4000.

The variation in calculators may come from the projector setting they used for their calculator. It's very possible that a projector in "Dynamic" mode will provide above 20ftl. However, once calibrated in a "Cinema" mode, the corrected light output may have decreased by half.


----------



## YanivZX6R

I have a question, i got my screen a few days back but when it is fully open i see on the lower left side and lower right side waves. Does this look right? should i return it?

Update:

I was able to fix it  amazing screen people.


----------



## abs

How big is your screen and can I ask how much you paid? 

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk


----------



## BrolicBeast

Greetings all. I have just learned that the Kaleidescape Strato allows for motorized masking screens to respond to the aspect ratio of any movie playing at a given time. The feature is actually a Kaleidescape mainstay from the Premier line. So, my question is this:


Does anybody know how to get that signal to a Seymour screen with motorized masking? I need to ensure that the Kscape is able to talk to the Seymour; however, I'm not sure how to go about this. Any help would be most appreciated. Thank you!


----------



## Ellebob

What control system are you using? How do you want to control the masking for the screen RS232, IR, Trigger, etc.?


The control system would query the kaleidescape via IP or RS-232 for video mode and cinema scape mode, depending on the response the control system would send out commands or triggers to control your screen. You won't get the kaleidescape to directly communicate with the screen.


----------



## BrolicBeast

Ellebob said:


> What control system are you using? How do you want to control the masking for the screen RS232, IR, Trigger, etc.?
> 
> 
> The control system would query the kaleidescape via IP or RS-232 for video mode and cinema scape mode, depending on the response the control system would send out commands or triggers to control your screen. You won't get the kaleidescape to directly communicate with the screen.



Currently use iRule. I have no intention of running the Kscape app and iRule simultaneously (in case the Kscape app precludes communication to iRule). I actually need to reach out to Seymour AV on all types of connections available on the screen, but I'm pretty sure it will be RS-232.


What is the catalyst for the query from the control system to the KScape? (Forgive me for such a noob question--I know nothing about control systems outside of iRule and Logitech Harmony). I know kscape has a feature where it generates a unique signal identifying the AR of a film. Would the kscape send this info to iRule as a trigger, and then iRule send the command to screen via RS-232?


----------



## nathan_h

BrolicBeast said:


> Would the kscape send this info to iRule as a trigger...?


Yes, IIRC. UPDATE: See below. Clearly I have the protocol backward.


----------



## Ellebob

iRule would need to query the Kscape. I don't think Kscape sends out aspect info unless asked. This is from memory so I could be wrong or it could have been updated with changes. Kscape did have an event (kind of a like a trigger) that it sends out when conditions change, usually from the screen saver to the material playing. You could have it query aspect when it receives an event stating material playing and is no longer on screen saver or menus. The query commands for IP and RS-232 are on their website. When you query the Kscape for aspect mode and it will give a response. In your programming then you say if I get this response send the RS-232 command to turn masking on or off, depending on the response.


----------



## chriscmore

The following are the input types into the screen's motor controller:

1) Dry contact. Whether from a momentary contact wall switch (springs back to center) or from programmed


----------



## Ellebob

The Kscape does not have trigger output or at least any of the models I have worked on. Mostly IP and RS-232, it can be controlled by IR on some models but for sending out info it is IP or RS-232. I am pretty sure the iRule can accept events, if it can't it can certainly query the kscape for status and then send out a contact closure, 12V trigger, RS-232 or IR command to control the masking depending which hardware you have connected. I assume you use a bunch of the Global Cache products with it. A wifi or IP to RS-232 is what I would use for the masking as it allows finer control but as Chris states it is a pricier interface box.


----------



## BrolicBeast

chriscmore said:


> The following are the input types into the screen's motor controller:
> 
> 1) Dry contact. Whether from a momentary contact wall switch (springs back to center) or from programmed


----------



## chriscmore

An extensive ambient light screen shootout was just published over at Projector Central: Ambient Light Rejection Screens

"The Seymour Matinee Black wins top honors for delivering the highest contrast measured in the Side Illumination tests -- a sparkling 36:1, handily beating the second place SI Black Diamond which measured 30:1. It achieved this by maintaining the deepest black levels in the group. And with excellent contrast and solid blacks comes excellent color saturation -- overall, the Seymour delivers an outstanding image produced by a very successful rejection of ambient light coming from the side."

"The bottom line is that if you can place the seats at or near the zero degree axis and your ambient light is coming from the side, it will outperform the other screens in this review."

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## armando2016

Chris,

I moved recently and during the move I lost a few of the little elastic bands. Is this something I can find in retail or I need to order from you?

The screen was stored for a couple of years and although i was careful packing it it got wrinkled in one corner. I am leaving it mounted to see if it will stretch out after a while if not, i'll need to order a replacement. It has been 1 week, it got better but still wrinkled.

Thank you!


----------



## ellisr63

armando2016 said:


> Chris,
> 
> I moved recently and during the move I lost a few of the little elastic bands. Is this something I can find in retail or I need to order from you?
> 
> The screen was stored for a couple of years and although i was careful packing it it got wrinkled in one corner. I am leaving it mounted to see if it will stretch out after a while if not, i'll need to order a replacement. It has been 1 week, it got better but still wrinkled.
> 
> Thank you!


I purchased some off of Amazon. Just measure the diameter and then order the same size.


----------



## chriscmore

You'd need to get them from us, as they are a custom manufactured item. Simply matching the length and diameter is a minor contributor to its spring force compared to the material and its properties. While you can always zip tie a spot or three if you need, I'd prefer to at least get the original tension matched and uniform. Any problem bits afterwards can be zeroed in on later.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## scherukat

I just posted this to the FB page.

I am looking for recommendations for a screen. The viewing area is not dedicated and will have ambient light. I can go as wide as 10 foot and as high as 60 inches starting from 6 inches from the ceiling. I am thinking of going with Black 1.2 Ambient-Visionaire . I am in N.California. Please leave me a email or technical contact for questions suggestions and how to purchase.

The wall has 2 small windows which I plan to board with ply. I am planning to get the Epson 5030 and I have about 18 foot throw i can work with.

Thanks
Sunil


----------



## chrispy

chriscmore said:


> The following are the input types into the screen's motor controller:
> 
> 1) Dry contact. Whether from a momentary contact wall switch (springs back to center) or from programmed


----------



## swampie

Hi Seymour,

Looking at the retractable masking, I really like the look of this but in your photo, it seems clear that you can see straight through it. Can you confirm it is or is not noticeable in real life?


----------



## armando2016

chriscmore said:


> You'd need to get them from us, as they are a custom manufactured item. Simply matching the length and diameter is a minor contributor to its spring force compared to the material and its properties. While you can always zip tie a spot or three if you need, I'd prefer to at least get the original tension matched and uniform. Any problem bits afterwards can be zeroed in on later.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris, (I can't send PMs yet, so I am posting here).

I am ready to place an order on your website for the masking panels. Couple of questions:

1) My H090XS screen was purchased in 2010. Just wanted to confirm that the masking panels will fit that model?

2) How can i add the 6 rubber bands replacement to my order?

Thank you!
Armando


----------



## ScottJ

swampie said:


> Hi Seymour,
> 
> Looking at the retractable masking, I really like the look of this but in your photo, it seems clear that you can see straight through it. Can you confirm it is or is not noticeable in real life?


Where can you see straight through it? The masking is halfway down in the photo and it looks solid black to me.

Assuming it's made like the full-width mask, there is a 2" velvet border and the rest is what Seymour calls Millibel. The velvet border is as black as it gets. The Millibel appears solid black in a dark room, but if the projector is displaying any picture on that portion, it is still visible.


----------



## swampie

ScottJ said:


> Where can you see straight through it?


Behind the velvet masking the white screen is faintly visible. This is exaggerated where the right hand 2.35 "screen" border meets the white screen behind the masking.It is even more obvious if you zoom in.

Whether or not this is a real life problem I do not know. but then that is the reason for the question. I am sure the very knd Mr Seymour will help out Scott.


----------



## ScottJ

swampie said:


> Behind the velvet masking the white screen is faintly visible. This is exaggerated where the right hand 2.35 "screen" border meets the white screen behind the masking.It is even more obvious if you zoom in.
> 
> Whether or not this is a real life problem I do not know. but then that is the reason for the question. I am sure the very knd Mr Seymour will help out Scott.


I see what you mean. Also I'm not certain that the side masking panels have velvet along the edge. It might be only the Millibel material.

As I said earlier, the Millibel material looks pitch black, provided you're in a darkened room and no picture is being projected on those panels (except for black).


----------



## swargolet

scherukat said:


> I just posted this to the FB page.
> 
> I am looking for recommendations for a screen. The viewing area is not dedicated and will have ambient light. I can go as wide as 10 foot and as high as 60 inches starting from 6 inches from the ceiling. I am thinking of going with Black 1.2 Ambient-Visionaire . I am in N.California. Please leave me a email or technical contact for questions suggestions and how to purchase.
> 
> The wall has 2 small windows which I plan to board with ply. I am planning to get the Epson 5030 and I have about 18 foot throw i can work with.
> 
> Thanks
> Sunil


I'd highly suggest getting samples first before buying a screen. I did quite a bit of comparing between Matinee Black, Matinee Silver, Ambient Visionaire 1.2 and Ambient Visionaire 1.3. My overall conclusion was that if you have a throw ratio great than 1.8 and have a relatively high lumen projector than go with the Maintee Black. I personally saw no difference at all between the Ambient Visionaire 1.2 and Matinee Black. The reason I say only go with this material when your throw is > 1.8 is because the viewing angles are pretty bad when under that ratio. 
If you have a > 1.5 throw then look more into the Matinee Silver. If you have around a 1.5 throw or less than go with the Ambient Visionaire 1.2. This screen is by far the best for hot spotting and viewing angles out of the 4 although the ALR capabilities are the worst although still much better than a normal white screen. 
I made a pretty lengthy post HERE comparing them all with quite a few pictures. Just an FYI, I am far from a professional reviewer so take these with a grain of salt.


----------



## chrispy

chrispy said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> How timely! I've been talking with Jon about your retractable Center Stage screens, and the only thing holding me back is the control method. I have an Epson 5030UB on order. I'm new to electric screens (and their cost!); had a fixed screen before. Application is above a fireplace mantel, with a 50" recessed TV for everyday non-projection viewing.
> 
> I don't need masking. I just want the screen to come down when the projector's on, and go up when the projector's off. This makes it 100% wife/kid-friendly when they want to watch a movie. I was hoping that I plug the screen into an outlet, connect the 12V trigger to a 12V input, and bam. But it appears that I need the RP6 control box and the LVT-BUS module. While I don't mind spending money for good reason, to me as a consumer, these carry a high cost for providing simple up/down functionality on a signal that most projectors offer and many electric screens receive directly.
> 
> I had been contemplating rigging up my own SPDT relay setup to power the down/up wires when the projector is on/off, respectively. But a relay in a project box is not really UL-certified, I don't know if leaving the up wire powered 24/7 (except for use) is a good idea, and I'm not sure if I need manual up/down capability for limit-setting.
> 
> What are your suggestions for my humble 12V trigger needs? Do I just suck-it-up-buttercup and buy the two modules?


Okay, I guess I needed a reality check. I just priced Da-Lite, Draper, and Screen Innovations motorized acoustically transparent screens - good heavens!

Chris, looking forward to your reply. Looks like I'm moving forward with a Seymour AV screen.


----------



## chriscmore

chrispy said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> How timely! I've been talking with Jon about your retractable Center Stage screens, and the only thing holding me back is the control method. I have an Epson 5030UB on order. I'm new to electric screens (and their cost!); had a fixed screen before. Application is above a fireplace mantel, with a 50" recessed TV for everyday non-projection viewing.
> 
> I don't need masking. I just want the screen to come down when the projector's on, and go up when the projector's off. This makes it 100% wife/kid-friendly when they want to watch a movie. I was hoping that I plug the screen into an outlet, connect the 12V trigger to a 12V input, and bam. But it appears that I need the RP6 control box and the LVT-BUS module. While I don't mind spending money for good reason, to me as a consumer, these carry a high cost for providing simple up/down functionality on a signal that most projectors offer and many electric screens receive directly.
> 
> I had been contemplating rigging up my own SPDT relay setup to power the down/up wires when the projector is on/off, respectively. But a relay in a project box is not really UL-certified, I don't know if leaving the up wire powered 24/7 (except for use) is a good idea, and I'm not sure if I need manual up/down capability for limit-setting.
> 
> What are your suggestions for my humble 12V trigger needs? Do I just suck-it-up-buttercup and buy the two modules?


We've had some folks rig up their own SPDT relay setup, even to actuate trap doors and such. The 4-wire motor is quite simple. Supply 120v to either red or black and the motor will go either up or down to its limit and relay out. If you don't relay it upstream and simply switch 120v such as through a maintained 3-position switch, then the wires will still have 120v on them but the motor relays off when it hits whichever limit. If you do relay it upstream, either through your own SPDT rig or through another motor control box, then it may or may not maintain 120v on the line depending on if your rig has current-sensing and switches itself off or not. Whether or not 120v is on the line 24/7 is not really important though and won't affect the motor. With our motor control boxes, when it senses the motor is done, it opens its 120v relay inside, so you hear two clicks at the end.

The limit setting is done on the motor's head through turn-pots, one for upper and one for lower. However, since every screen is bespoke, hopefully we can make it to your specifications.

Are you able to run a 12Vdc wire from your projector to a screen motor control box? In some situations that's very difficult.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

swampie said:


> Hi Seymour,
> 
> Looking at the retractable masking, I really like the look of this but in your photo, it seems clear that you can see straight through it. Can you confirm it is or is not noticeable in real life?


If you're standing in our factory with all the lights on, and looking really hard through the Millibel mesh, yes you can see the velvet border with the screen behind it. This isn't a viewing condition, however, since you'd need 50,000+ lumens to have a watchable image on a white screen in full lighting.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chrispy

chriscmore said:


> We've had some folks rig up their own SPDT relay setup, even to actuate trap doors and such. The 4-wire motor is quite simple. Supply 120v to either red or black and the motor will go either up or down to its limit and relay out. If you don't relay it upstream and simply switch 120v such as through a maintained 3-position switch, then the wires will still have 120v on them but the motor relays off when it hits whichever limit. If you do relay it upstream, either through your own SPDT rig or through another motor control box, then it may or may not maintain 120v on the line depending on if your rig has current-sensing and switches itself off or not. Whether or not 120v is on the line 24/7 is not really important though and won't affect the motor. With our motor control boxes, when it senses the motor is done, it opens its 120v relay inside, so you hear two clicks at the end.
> 
> The limit setting is done on the motor's head through turn-pots, one for upper and one for lower. However, since every screen is bespoke, hopefully we can make it to your specifications.
> 
> Are you able to run a 12Vdc wire from your projector to a screen motor control box? In some situations that's very difficult.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris! Fortunately, I have an easy wall->basement->wall path from the projector to where the control box would be (and from there up to the screen!), so that's no problem.

Right now I'm leaning toward rigging up a little project box with an SPDT relay, a male 110VAC plug from a hacked-up IEC cord on one side (I got a million of 'em!), the 4-wire on the other, and connect the required wires nicely to the relay with soldered spade terminals. I'm a digital E.E., though; got a part # recommendation for a relay?

I can always reterminate the 4-wire and move to the RP6 if needed, but I'm a bit squeezed on the budget for now.


----------



## scherukat

swargolet said:


> I'd highly suggest getting samples first before buying a screen. I did quite a bit of comparing between Matinee Black, Matinee Silver, Ambient Visionaire 1.2 and Ambient Visionaire 1.3. My overall conclusion was that if you have a throw ratio great than 1.8 and have a relatively high lumen projector than go with the Maintee Black. I personally saw no difference at all between the Ambient Visionaire 1.2 and Matinee Black. The reason I say only go with this material when your throw is > 1.8 is because the viewing angles are pretty bad when under that ratio.
> 
> If you have a > 1.5 throw then look more into the Matinee Silver. If you have around a 1.5 throw or less than go with the Ambient Visionaire 1.2. This screen is by far the best for hot spotting and viewing angles out of the 4 although the ALR capabilities are the worst although still much better than a normal white screen.
> 
> I made a pretty lengthy post HERE comparing them all with quite a few pictures. Just an FYI, I am far from a professional reviewer so take these with a grain of salt.




Thanks. I just ordered samples of AV and Matinee Silver and Black. In my room with quite a bit of ambient light I can do a 2x throw. The projector will be a JVC R400U/DLA 550.

I would like the black material to work AV 1.2. But when I use the JVC calculator it recommends a larger screen size when the throw is 2x. 

The pictures you posted were very informative


----------



## swampie

Chris,

Can you supply me in the UK please?


----------



## Jeff Permanian

We used a Seymour Enlighten 4k screen at Rocky Mountain Audiofest last year and I was so impressed that I purchased one. I'll have to see when Jeff Meier is in the area again to calibrate the video again.


----------



## isisyodin

Hi Guys,

I received my ambient visionaire 1.2 yesterday. My brother and I put it together fairly quick; I've put together a couple of Da-Lites in the past with their snap system.
The Seymour frame is less rigid than others I have seen, but it is lighter and seems to keep its shape OK.
The screen material looks nice and well manufactured. 
The tensioning system IMHO is not par with the quality of its components. It is a grommet and o-ring (bungee) system. The anchors are screws that are fixed to the frame; the idea is to thread the o-rings thru the grommets and hold the o-rings to the fixed screws.
I had 2 o-rings break while stretching them; some grommets have a somewhat sharper edge than what the o-ring can handle. I wanted to use 2 o-rings per corner but busting 2 o-rings in the process did not leave me enough o-rings; I had to rearrange the corners with just one o-ring.
My brother and I followed an opposite side sequence to tension the screen; we thought it would be a good idea since the instructions don't really touch on this topic; from the lack of instructions I am guessing it doesn't matter.
We then proceeded to hang the screen. Immediately we noticed 2 bands of ripples going across near the top. We left it hanged for an hour thinking it may stretch out, but no luck.
I pulled the screen down and retried another sequence; no change. We then proceeded to flip the material top to bottom; proceeded to tension the screen; we hanged the screen and now the ripples were at the bottom instead. It basically follows the material.
I left it overnight thinking that the home theater gods would stretch out the screen but this morning it was the same; 2 bands of ripples about 6 inches tall going across; it is unwatchable. 
The top where the screen is nice and smooth is pretty good; it does reject the random ambient light nicely; it plays nice with my JVC 4810. I will need to calibrate, but nevertheless it looks nice. Last night with lights coming from an adjacent room and in total darkness it looked pretty awesome.

Well, I have contacted Mike and Seymour as this may be a defect in the grommet placement or how the screen was cut or even how the layers were glued together; it's bad luck I suppose that it had to happen to me, but I am confident that it will get corrected. The boxing was intact; nothing seemed to be off place during shipping. I have to say that Seymour does a good packing their stuff.

A couple of pictures of the screen.


----------



## isisyodin

Another shot of the screen; very distracting and no way to enjoy any content whatsoever.


----------



## chriscmore

isisyodin said:


> Another shot of the screen; very distracting and no way to enjoy any content whatsoever.


Of course not. As discussed through Mike, for you to enjoy content last night, you can zip tie bottom 3-4 grommets at the sides and stretch it flat. We'll send you additional o-rings, but the reason you're breaking them is not due to sharp grommets but that you're using your fingers to pull them too long. You can use the head of the Allen wrench as a hook to grab the o-ring without overstretching it. We give a couple extra as standard but if you end up needing more, no problem; they're on the way. 

With this o-ring / grommet design you can dial in whatever tension you need, wherever you need it. Double up on those bottom 3-4 grommets and you've doubled the tension where it needs it. Snap systems can't do that. Finally, if you still encounter problems you have a ten year warranty. Da-Lite is 10% of that.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## isisyodin

Thanks for the feedback Chris. I just commented on my experience with the screen so far and hopefully they did not come out as rants. I do like many things about the screen which lead me to pull the trigger after looking at your main competitors. It's been more than one and a half years of research and testing different screen materials. The AV 1.2 has been the best overall for my room.

As for the ripples, I will try the zip ties as a temporary fix; I need to head out to Home Depot and get some, but it will be when I get back from a week long business trip.


Cheers


----------



## ChldsPlay

Anyone know how to fix this? Center Stage XD on fixed frame. Seems construction workers left things resting against it at times.


----------



## BrolicBeast

ChldsPlay said:


> Anyone know how to fix this? Center Stage XD on fixed frame. Seems construction workers left things resting against it at times.


A blow dryer might help. If not, they need to reimburse you for the cost of the screen material.


----------



## ChldsPlay

I will try that and also see what Seymour says. Contractor has said they will pay the cost if there is any.


----------



## Stridulent

I am about to build a frame for my Centerstage screen material and had a few questions..

What angle does the tilt need to be?

Do I need to black out everything behind it (framing, wall, etc)?


----------



## chriscmore

ChldsPlay said:


> Anyone know how to fix this? Center Stage XD on fixed frame. Seems construction workers left things resting against it at times.


If it doesn't relax on its own over a few days, try hitting the area with some steam. The o-ring tensioning will reset the tension and we've brought screens back from the dead using steam. It does have limitations, so if the damage is beyond that fix, then the next step would be to trace the thread lines to the grommets that could possibly tension that area and zip tie them tighter. If you don't like that solution or you're not finding it fixable enough, then we can of course replace the screen layer.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Stridulent said:


> I am about to build a frame for my Centerstage screen material and had a few questions..
> 
> What angle does the tilt need to be?
> 
> Do I need to black out everything behind it (framing, wall, etc)?


We bias the cut at 20 degrees, or whatever fits on the roll width as the screen size grows. The easy DIY approach is to lay the material on the floor and angle your frame to whatever angle fits. Trace with a marker and cut.

Ideally blacken everything behind the screen, or as reasonably dark as you can get it (brown, maroon, etc.), but if you have framing members directly behind the screen just matte black them.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Stridulent

chriscmore said:


> We bias the cut at 20 degrees, or whatever fits on the roll width as the screen size grows. The easy DIY approach is to lay the material on the floor and angle your frame to whatever angle fits. Trace with a marker and cut.
> 
> Ideally blacken everything behind the screen, or as reasonably dark as you can get it (brown, maroon, etc.), but if you have framing members directly behind the screen just matte black them.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Is 20 degree the optimal angle? I actually decided to go with a smaller screen than originally anticipated, so I have more than enough material.


----------



## chriscmore

Stridulent said:


> Is 20 degree the optimal angle? I actually decided to go with a smaller screen than originally anticipated, so I have more than enough material.


20 is max.

Chris


----------



## ChldsPlay

chriscmore said:


> If it doesn't relax on its own over a few days, try hitting the area with some steam. The o-ring tensioning will reset the tension and we've brought screens back from the dead using steam. It does have limitations, so if the damage is beyond that fix, then the next step would be to trace the thread lines to the grommets that could possibly tension that area and zip tie them tighter. If you don't like that solution or you're not finding it fixable enough, then we can of course replace the screen layer.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Steam and some time worked out. Thank you.


----------



## deromax

I did just that a few years ago with excellent results. Finished the trim with a nice self-adhesive 3" black velvet strip from eBay!


----------



## chriscmore

Mark Henniger has a nice write-up on the Seaton Sound demo at AXPONA, with our Enlightor-4K screen.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...-atmos-system-axpona-2016-a.html#post43510410

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## brian6751

any owners here have experience with the Center Stage UF material paired with a Sony 40es? I'm really torn between this and another material for my screen choice. The UF seems to be very color neutral while the other one seems to have "slightly" better blacks. Of course, judging from these tiny samples isn't easy either.


----------



## Boggle

Hi all,

I just bought the center stage UF material, about 120" screen. I am getting alot of color bands, most obvious on a white background. See screenshot below. I assume this is due to tension in the fabric, or lack thereof. Any advice? It looks pretty bad, even more obvious in person.


----------



## nathan_h

brian6751 said:


> any owners here have experience with the Center Stage UF material paired with a Sony 40es? I'm really torn between this and another material for my screen choice. The UF seems to be very color neutral while the other one seems to have "slightly" better blacks. Of course, judging from these tiny samples isn't easy either.


I've made the mistake in the past of choosing a screen material to correct for a failing in my projector and lived to regret. Get the most neutral screen you can, with the gain you need to achieve 15ftl with a bulb at 500 hours of use = the best combination I have found.

Chasing something like a slight edge in black level, while sacrificing color accuracy, brightness, acoustic transparency, or visible weave was never very satisfying to me. YMMV.



Boggle said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I just bought the center stage UF material, about 120" screen. I am getting alot of color bands, most obvious on a white background. See screenshot below. I assume this is due to tension in the fabric, or lack thereof. Any advice? It looks pretty bad, even more obvious in person.


Hard to tell when I am looking at. Is this a projected gray image? Yes, I would NOT want to look at that, either!

If those are physical ripples in the screen, I would not call that banding, I would call that SAGGING and yes, tension is probably the culprit.


----------



## Boggle

nathan_h said:


> Hard to tell when I am looking at. Is this a projected gray image? Yes, I would NOT want to look at that, either!
> 
> If those are physical ripples in the screen, I would not call that banding, I would call that SAGGING and yes, tension is probably the culprit.


It is a projected solid gray image. It isn't sagging, there is definitely tension. But yes it ends up looking like ripples in the material. I will take a picture when I get home from the side to show that its not sagging.


----------



## isisyodin

What kind of tensioning system does the screen use? Can you apply mor tension?


----------



## nathan_h

Boggle said:


> It is a projected solid gray image. It isn't sagging, there is definitely tension. But yes it ends up looking like ripples in the material. I will take a picture when I get home from the side to show that its not sagging.





isisyodin said:


> What kind of tensioning system does the screen use? Can you apply mor tension?


Looks like the tension is either going in the wrong way or wrong proportions (if there are physical waves) or the material is severely marred (if the screen is flat but still looks that way). But it's VERY HARD to tell from the photo.


----------



## StevenC56

Boggle said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I just bought the center stage UF material, about 120" screen. I am getting alot of color bands, most obvious on a white background. See screenshot below. I assume this is due to tension in the fabric, or lack thereof. Any advice? It looks pretty bad, even more obvious in person.


looks like moire to me. What projector and throw distance?


----------



## nathan_h

StevenC56 said:


> looks like moire to me. What projector and throw distance?




Good point. Need to remove the projector from the test and just look at it with room light.


----------



## isisyodin

Take a picture from the sides at a 30 degree or so angle. If you see ripples then you can conclude you need to apply more tension.
If you don't see any ripples, I would look into trying other test patterns, the equipment reproducing the patterns, and PJ setup.


----------



## isisyodin

Well guys, I finally got around at calibrating my 117" ambient visionaire 1.2 screen.
My PJ is a JVC 4810 with a bulb ~100hrs old.
I use a radiance XE and Chromapure with a i1 display 3 pro.
The results: pretty good. I am pretty happy with the outcome as they have exceeded my expectations.
It is the first time I calibrate an ALR screen, and I was afraid the grayscale and colors would have a significant push to blue and green. To the contrary, red is the one that gave me the biggest challenge; I believe it is mainly due to the JVC bulbs as they have a tendency to have inconsistent performance with red; in any case, nothing major to be honest; I am just being picky.
The gamma was easy to fix with the Radiance giving me even transitions in movie scenes where bright to dark typically show banding.
Overall, with random ambient light the screen does very well with bright material such as sports, video games, and animated films. Movies don't look as good but are watchable; I typically don't watch movies during the day, so no issues for me. At night, with dimmed lights or total darkness, the screen looks fantastic; I watched Gravity and the black space was very convincing; Gravity is not in 1:78 aspect ratio, so the black bars on the top and bottom were just about the same color as the black space which is all you can ask.
Images do pop and the colors are not extremely vivid but not dull either; they are close to looking at matte screen which is nice for a change; all those glossy screens look somewhat artificial to me.
It took me 2 years to find a screen for my multi-purpose family room. I was tired of looking around, but I guess I lucked out cause this screen works for me. I tested SI, Microlite, DnP, and Elite; all good screens, but the AV1.2 was a better fit for my room.


----------



## scherukat

isisyodin said:


> Well guys, I finally got around at calibrating my 117" ambient visionaire 1.2 screen.
> 
> My PJ is a JVC 4810 with a bulb ~100hrs old.
> 
> I use a radiance XE and Chromapure with a i1 display 3 pro.
> 
> The results: pretty good. I am pretty happy with the outcome as they have exceeded my expectations.
> 
> It is the first time I calibrate an ALR screen, and I was afraid the grayscale and colors would have a significant push to blue and green. To the contrary, red is the one that gave me the biggest challenge; I believe it is mainly due to the JVC bulbs as they have a tendency to have inconsistent performance with red; in any case, nothing major to be honest; I am just being picky.
> 
> The gamma was easy to fix with the Radiance giving me even transitions in movie scenes where bright to dark typically show banding.
> 
> Overall, with random ambient light the screen does very well with bright material such as sports, video games, and animated films. Movies don't look as good but are watchable; I typically don't watch movies during the day, so no issues for me. At night, with dimmed lights or total darkness, the screen looks fantastic; I watched Gravity and the black space was very convincing; Gravity is not in 1:78 aspect ratio, so the black bars on the top and bottom were just about the same color as the black space which is all you can ask.
> 
> Images do pop and the colors are not extremely vivid but not dull either; they are close to looking at matte screen which is nice for a change; all those glossy screens look somewhat artificial to me.
> 
> It took me 2 years to find a screen for my multi-purpose family room. I was tired of looking around, but I guess I lucked out cause this screen works for me. I tested SI, Microlite, DnP, and Elite; all good screens, but the AV1.2 was a better fit for my room.




Thank you for the post. Chris sent me samples of the AV 1.2 screen and Matinee Black and I am going to test this with a RS400 soon. I have a similar setup with a multi purpose room. There very little information out there as to how this screen performs. This helps. In not familiar with calibration so I will use it without calibration for a while until I find one.


----------



## isisyodin

scherukat said:


> Thank you for the post. Chris sent me samples of the AV 1.2 screen and Matinee Black and I am going to test this with a RS400 soon. I have a similar setup with a multi purpose room. There very little information out there as to how this screen performs. This helps. In not familiar with calibration so I will use it without calibration for a while until I find one.


Samples are OK to judge the quality of the material and rule out screen materials that are either too dark or too bright; it will not give you a conclusive idea of the overall experience. 
I was lucky to see the screen in person. What I recommend is find out with Chris if anyone in your area has the screen, so you can see it in person.
If you end up liking it, give [email protected] a call; he deals with Seymour and has very competitive prices.

On JVCs typically Cinema Standard is the most accurate profile out of the box. I also use low power light settings and the iris fully open. Don't use any of the screen material profiles (mine has none, A, B, C) as they tint the screen red. I went with 6500K and gamma 2.3.
Even if you don't plan to fully calibrate, adjust your contrast and brightness otherwise you will have your blacks and whites all over the place and you will not enjoy the screen. This post covers everything, but you can simply focus on contrast and brightness. http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35322


----------



## scherukat

isisyodin said:


> Samples are OK to judge the quality of the material and rule out screen materials that are either too dark or too bright; it will not give you a conclusive idea of the overall experience.
> 
> I was lucky to see the screen in person. What I recommend is find out with Chris if anyone in your area has the screen, so you can see it in person.
> 
> If you end up liking it, give [email protected] a call; he deals with Seymour and has very competitive prices.
> 
> 
> 
> On JVCs typically Cinema Standard is the most accurate profile out of the box. I also use low power light settings and the iris fully open. Don't use any of the screen material profiles (mine has none, A, B, C) as they tint the screen red. I went with 6500K and gamma 2.3.
> 
> Even if you don't plan to fully calibrate, adjust your contrast and brightness otherwise you will have your blacks and whites all over the place and you will not enjoy the screen. This post covers everything, but you can simply focus on contrast and brightness. http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35322




Thanks for the calibration link. It is very informative. Could you please let me know your throw distance from the 117 diagonal screen? Is it 16:9? I plan to get the scope 2.37 and wanted to get an idea of the throw distance to use with the JVC.


----------



## isisyodin

My JVC is about 15ft away. Screen aspect is 16x9. The projector can project a much bigger size btw.
If you go to the JVC website, you'll find a throw distance calculator or the users manual which have lookup tables with typical screen sizes.


----------



## chriscmore

Boggle said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I just bought the center stage UF material, about 120" screen. I am getting alot of color bands, most obvious on a white background. See screenshot below. I assume this is due to tension in the fabric, or lack thereof. Any advice? It looks pretty bad, even more obvious in person.


The easiest test is to place a sheet of paper on it and see if the banding is still there or disappears. If it disappears, we'll want to replace that screen material with a higher-angle cut. The UF is very moire resistant but sometimes we have to trick it.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

scherukat said:


> Thank you for the post. Chris sent me samples of the AV 1.2 screen and Matinee Black and I am going to test this with a RS400 soon. I have a similar setup with a multi purpose room. There very little information out there as to how this screen performs. This helps. In not familiar with calibration so I will use it without calibration for a while until I find one.


Here is some information:

Matinee Black
http://www.projectorcentral.com/ambient-light-rejection-screens-2.htm?page=Seymour-Matinee-Black

Ambient-Visionaire 1.2
http://www.soundandvision.com/conte...-projection-screen-review#T3IHlSHcIPu4qSPE.97






http://www.avsforum.com/top-10-video-stories-at-ces-2016/

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## scodex

Interesting thread. My friend just bought this screen also. Need him to come and take a look.


----------



## Boggle

chriscmore said:


> The easiest test is to place a sheet of paper on it and see if the banding is still there or disappears. If it disappears, we'll want to replace that screen material with a higher-angle cut. The UF is very moire resistant but sometimes we have to trick it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hi Everyone,

Thanks so much for the replies! As usual you guys are enormously helpful. 

The projector is an Epson 5020UB. It is 12 feet back or so, projecting onto an 120" screen.

Here is a 30 degree angle shot, with a piece of paper on it. The paper doesn't seem to moire :/ 

I tried increasing or decreasing the tension. It didn't seem to help any. I think you can see that the fabric is pretty darn flat in the picture, so I don't want to mess with it any more than I already have.


----------



## isisyodin

Boggle said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Thanks so much for the replies! As usual you guys are enormously helpful.
> 
> The projector is an Epson 5020UB. It is 12 feet back or so, projecting onto an 120" screen.
> 
> Here is a 30 degree angle shot, with a piece of paper on it. The paper doesn't seem to moire :/
> 
> I tried increasing or decreasing the tension. It didn't seem to help any. I think you can see that the fabric is pretty darn flat in the picture, so I don't want to mess with it any more than I already have.


Wow! something is out of whack for sure. I am sure Chris will reach out to you soon. In the mean time, (not sure if it will help) but did you try flipping the screen material top to bottom? I am not familiar with your screen material, but is there any possibility the material may be on reversed? Some acoustically transparent materials are difficult to tell sometimes.


----------



## Boggle

i followed the instructions and used the inside surface of the roll


----------



## nathan_h

chriscmore said:


> The easiest test is to place a sheet of paper on it and see if the banding is still there or disappears. If it disappears, we'll want to replace that screen material with a higher-angle cut. The UF is very moire resistant but sometimes we have to trick it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris





Boggle said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Thanks so much for the replies! As usual you guys are enormously helpful.
> 
> The projector is an Epson 5020UB. It is 12 feet back or so, projecting onto an 120" screen.
> 
> Here is a 30 degree angle shot, with a piece of paper on it. The paper doesn't seem to moire :/
> 
> I tried increasing or decreasing the tension. It didn't seem to help any. I think you can see that the fabric is pretty darn flat in the picture, so I don't want to mess with it any more than I already have.


Good photo. 

And as Chris said above, that looks like something they will replace under warranty.


----------



## chriscmore

Good call on checking to use the inside/ smooth side of the roll. 

Email Jon at [email protected] and give your screen stats so we can cut a replacement order. The older Epsons were especially prone to moire on a lot of surfaces because their panel alignment was less than perfect. (Side note: I displayed with Epson in 2008 and their projector moired on paper too. Panel alignment issues they said.) We can fit it for this combo, but I'm just pointing out that with better alignment and smoother digital panel structures, this is a disappearing issue these days.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Stridulent

Two questions.. When removing my screen material from the tube, we accidentally allowed it to bend in one spot. Now on the frame, it was a rippled area the size of one's fist every 8 - 12 inches. Anyway to remedy this? I don't have grommets; secured to frame using staples.


2nd question.. The bottom corner of my screen frame is beginning to warp outward. Anyone know of any tricks to fix?


----------



## DavidK442

Stridulent said:


> Two questions.. When removing my screen material from the tube, we accidentally allowed it to bend in one spot. Now on the frame, it was a rippled area the size of one's fist every 8 - 12 inches. Anyway to remedy this? I don't have grommets; secured to frame using staples.
> 
> 
> 2nd question.. The bottom corner of my screen frame is beginning to warp outward. Anyone know of any tricks to fix?


I assume you are using a home made wooden frame. You don't mention what material you are using, but even if it has very little stretch I'm surprised you weren't able to pull it taught during the stapling process. Are you sure the problem is due to the folding or could it be uneven attachment to the frame?
As for the warping frame; that's why people pay big dollars for an engineered, heavy duty aluminum frame. I can think of two options to make a wooden screen lay flat. 1) Attach to a wall at all four corners. (French cleat the top and possibly use velcro nailed to a stud and stapled to the back of your frame out near the edge.) or 2) Attach a wooden box to the back of the frame. (1X4 would guarantee a flat surface, but even 1X2's should give enough stability in the 3rd dimension to make it lay flat.)
My wooden 1X4 frame tends to twist, even though it has two center supports, but I mount it top and bottom so have no problems.


----------



## chriscmore

Stridulent said:


> Two questions.. When removing my screen material from the tube, we accidentally allowed it to bend in one spot. Now on the frame, it was a rippled area the size of one's fist every 8 - 12 inches. Anyway to remedy this? I don't have grommets; secured to frame using staples.
> 
> 
> 2nd question.. The bottom corner of my screen frame is beginning to warp outward. Anyone know of any tricks to fix?


I'd trace the threads to where on each side of the frame they are stapled, remove the staples and pull extra hard in those zones, restapling when you like the result. You could lightly steam around the spot to make them more pliable, but without a grommet / o-ring trampoline system, don't go overboard with the steam since the staple method can only eat up so much.

David hit some techniques for pinning a wood frame to the wall.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Stridulent

chriscmore said:


> I'd trace the threads to where on each side of the frame they are stapled, remove the staples and pull extra hard in those zones, restapling when you like the result. You could lightly steam around the spot to make them more pliable, but without a grommet / o-ring trampoline system, don't go overboard with the steam since the staple method can only eat up so much.
> 
> David hit some techniques for pinning a wood frame to the wall.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thank you for the responses. I have tried the steam method then tightening the staples, which helped very slightly. The ripples are only apparent when a light is cast from the far left of the screen. I may just have to live with it. It is one of those things that only I would know about as I'm pretty sure no one would notice. However, I plan on attaching trim covered in velvet on top of the staples/frame, so I wanted to do my best to resolve the issue before doing that.

My frame is 8' wide framed with 1x4 pine. There are two 1x2 pine pieces vertically on the inner 1/3's. Securing the frame to the wall just be the best option. I was curious if maybe a small piece of 8' angle metal would help keep the bottom 1x4 straight (something like this).

Because I did use french cleats at the top, I think having the bottom off the wall an inch or so would actually help balance the distance that the frame is off at the top due to the cleats.


----------



## chriscmore

If there is curvature to your boards, then yeah - adding metal like that will straighten it. Jamestown uses a method like that, incorporating metal on the back of wooden frames.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

You should check out May's AVS Home Theater of the Month, from Kevin Childs called "The Hodor Theater".

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/2466809-ht-month-hodor-theater.html

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## clausdk

Just about to mount my DIY UF screen material!

Can anyone tell me which side to face out? The viewing side?

It's somewhat softer on one side and a bit more well, defined on the other. Which side is the viewing surface?


----------



## chriscmore

clausdk said:


> Just about to mount my DIY UF screen material!
> 
> Can anyone tell me which side to face out? The viewing side?
> 
> It's somewhat softer on one side and a bit more well, defined on the other. Which side is the viewing surface?


The inside surface of the roll is the viewing side. It's what is inspected for blemishes, and is the smooth side. The back side of the UK is a striped texture that should not be used.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## MysticalJet

Just want to give a big shout out to Chris and his team for working with me to make thing right on a botched order - completely my fault! 

I had been ordering so much fabric lately for my theater build, I accidentally ordered 4 feet of the XD from their website when I meant to order 4 yards. Even though they shipped and I received the 4 feet, they worked with me to get the 4 yards without simply double charging me.

Great bunch of guys to talk to and do business with. Recommend to anyone looking for a screen.


----------



## chriscmore

Here is a good video showing how an installation incorporated lights behind his Center Stage XD screen in order to get that IMAX reveal look. The key is maximizing the amount of light on the speakers, while minimizing the amount of light that hits the backside of the screen. When either side of the screen is lit, the screen becomes visually opaque.

His install is a great story in DIY skills and perseverance through difficult health. Definitely a future AVS HToM...
Youthman's Official Build Thread

Youthman's video on backlighting an XD screen. Also, check out those struts.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## youthman

Thanks Chris. I'm 100% satisfied with the Seymour Center Stage XD fabric. It's extremely durable fabric (much more so than I even expected). Image is spectacular and speakers sound fantastic directly behind the screen. I was unsure if I would actually be able to see through the screen when the speakers were backlit. Originally the LED threw some light onto the back of the screen but I was able to place a piece of wood above the LED strip to prevent it from spilling onto the screen which helped a lot.


----------



## pgwalsh

I finally mounted my Seymour screen last night. It was pretty strait forward and went without a hiccup. Even though UPS (or FedEx?) beat up the box pretty good everything was in good order. The frame assembly was very simple and the frame itself is more substantial than I would have thought. I installed the screen backing material too which was a nice surprise because I wasn't expecting it. It's the 3F120WS with EN4K material. Thanks to Chris and Mike Garett for all your help. 

Before:









After:









My 8 month pregnant wife helped me lift this up and mount it. It wasn't heavy at all. The only problem is she really wants me to finish the theater asap.


----------



## ndabunka

chriscmore;45409753Chris[/QUOTE said:


> Discussed


----------



## chriscmore

Make sure you have black behind every sample piece, otherwise it will not look as it will in a projection screen. Reflections from behind the material are unhelpful.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## OldMike2

Missed this thread and posted these questions in an old thread, need to use my eyes and brain more!!!! 


First I'm totally happy with my choice of an XD fabric 144inch wide 2.40 curved fixed screen that I bought a few years ago. I'd recommend Seymour, both their products and customer service, to anyone.

I have a couple of questions for Chris. 

Is there a recommended "screen correction number" for the XD material for the JVC system of screen correction available in their higher end units? JVC do not list Seymour screen materials in their documentation. 

I notice from the various graphs on the Seymour site that the high frequency attenuation appears to be a gentle roll off of about 3-4 dB from around 5KHz up to 20KHz, this versus the quoted "average reduction of 1.4dB above 2KHz". I'm asking for confirmation on this observation as I'm experimenting with my DSP units associated with my dipole LCR speakers to apply a correction to a flat response.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I just wanted to post as I will shortly be an owner of 3 metres of XD material. I was able to buy this unopened roll of material at a knock down price, so I plan to make my own 10' wide 2.40:1 screen with it. I've already downloaded the Seymour PDF on how to make a DIY screen, so I think I'll be good to go. The material has a 20 degree tilt to it.

I'll be using a JVC X500 with this screen. I measured 130 Lux at the (old) screen in low lamp and 160 Lux in high lamp (fully calibrated using an external Lumagen). I calculate this as 11fL and 13.3fL using 0.9 gain figure from the Accucal report I read. 

I realise this is not as high as some would recommend (though my lamp is very stable at 400 hours, so I don't expect any major drop for a good while yet, based on my previous JVC X35 that used the same lamp type). Eventually I hope to get a brighter projector, but I think I should be OK for the time being.

I'll be sat between 12 and 14' away from this screen, so I should be good in terms of weave. Having said that, I've seen an XD at my dealer and found that I couldn't see the weave until I got _very_ close to the screen.

I can't wait to start enjoying some AT goodness after 7 years of non AT with speakers in less than ideal locations. I'm losing a touch of gain (my old screen claimed 1.5, but I believe it was nearer 1.2), but I think the benefits will outweigh this since I used to close down the aperture anyway with my old screen to hit 12fL, so I'll be able to use high lamp and close the aperture a click or two and hit the same 12fL as before.


----------



## jjcook

Kelvin1965S said:


> I'll be sat between 12 and 14' away from this screen, so I should be good in terms of weave. Having said that, I've seen an XD at my dealer and found that I couldn't see the weave until I got _very_ close to the screen.
> ...
> I can't wait to start enjoying some AT goodness after 7 years of non AT with speakers in less than ideal locations.


Yes you should be good at that distance, I found personally in my testing that in bright APL scenes the weave would start to show up at around 11' away.

If you can find a source of extruded aluminum channel in the UK its a great material to make the frame out of, see my signature for my plans for this plus an automated masking system to integrate with it.

Enjoy!


----------



## OldMike2

Kelvin,


I find my RS600 on my 144 inch wide 2.40 XD plenty bright enough. No measurements just subjective. I use mostly the THX setting in low lamp with out of the box settings, I'm waiting to get some hours on the unit before doing a calibration. My front row is 13ft from the screen and my projector is about 19ft mounted on the rear wall and it is a bat cave. I think you'll be just fine.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

That's good to hear, though when I first bought a meter I found out I'd been watching at around 5fL as I'd just closed the aperture to -15 on my old JVC HD350 (RS10) when I set it up and it seemed bright enough. I set it to 12fL and found it looked much punchier, so I've got used to this as a target, so I've always set my projectors up to this level since.

My X500 is also 19' from the screen too, so I'm nearer the low end of the zoom to fill the 10' wide XD, but my measurements were made with it set this way so I reckon I'll be OK to hit my target. I do also wonder just how close to the claimed 1.5 gain my old screen was because putting a sample of XD against it didn't really look any dimmer by eye (I never did an actual measurement to confirm though).


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I just wanted to confirm a few things having received my brand new still in box XD screen material 

1. Is there a minimum distance between my speakers and this screen?

2. I haven't got any black backing (which I'd planed on having with my original plan of the electric drop down XD screen). I was thinking of putting speaker grille fabric over the entire screen wall area to help with any leak through. I will be covering the wall around the speakers with AT foam tiles. Does it matter how far back from the XD this extra layer is?

Would this extra layer of material cause any issues or is this pretty much what everyone else does? I've bought some really good LCR speakers at half the regular new price (MK MP300) though they are the white versions, so I need to cover them to hide the white surface.


----------



## deromax

1) No

2) Anything from medium grey-to-darker behind the screen will do. No issue with soundproofing material behind the screen, unless it's a light color! I stuffed all the Safe & Sound material I could arround my speakers. The absorbing property will work thru the screen, like it's not there!


----------



## sdrucker

Hi,
This may fall into the "are you kidding" category, but I have a HT room (20x15x9) in an urban hi-rise, where I'm planning to do a drop-down retractable AT screen, with the Center Stage fabric TBD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. My main reason for doing AT was to be able to have a vertical center channel matching my mains (PSB Imagine T2), but ideally I'd hide my mains behind the screen as well (and possibly left/right center channels that I can do with my Trinnov, but that's probably not going to be worth the trouble in my configuration).

Here's the thing: I have a 9' cement ceiling and I've managed to get good results from Dolby Atmos enabled modules put out by PSB, using two pairs of their PSB Imagine XA with the modules on top of my mains. I've charitably got 95" of space between my mains, so I could JUST do a 95" screen with the border material and moving the speakers out a few inches each way. However, in an ideal world, I'd put my mains behind the AT screen and add black fabric material to present a black background on the sides of the screen. That would allow me to go to a larger screen, like 105" or 110" (maybe bigger). But....I'm under the impression that the reflective speakers would be compromised by being behind an AT screen. 

My question - if there's roughly uniform rolloff (+/- 2 to 3 db) or closer to it in the higher frequencies, is this really a concern WRT indirect sound coming from the Imagine XAs? There's a workaround, which would be to have the Dolby speakers just outside of the screen, and I'm also looking into the option of a false wall if my condo association approves, but the Atmos-based virtual imagery I have now works. And with my seating distance aimed at about 1/3 (6-7 ft) from the back room mode-cancelling with my subs, I'd be about 10' to 11' from a screen (figuring about up to 3' space behind the screen), so that 95' might just be too small given that I could get away with up to a 17' throw distance to screen with something like a JVC RS400 and easily 110' width based on the Projector Central calculator. Thoughts?

Thanks,
Stuart


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Stuart -

The acoustical transparency of the screen is not impacted by speaker angle - unlike perfed vinyl screens - so you can fire up from your mains with add-on Atmos just fine. You may want to specify that we make the header out of an acoustically transparent material too, so that you don't have anything reflective from the screen. Also keep in mind that every screen is made to order, so we can manufacture to the 0.1" resolution to any critical dimension you like.

Generally, we advise setting up your sound space to achieve its best as if there were no screen at all (which acoustically there won't be, especially for the indirect channels). Then, once you've achieved acoustics nirvana, either we can recommend some sizes based on guidelines (seating distance), or perhaps hard realities of the room or speakers dictate what we can work within. The most diligent would be to tack up a temporary screen such as a bedsheet and then measure out exactly what size and height you like. A touch of experience goes a long way.

The Center Stage UF would be the way to go in this room, too.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I went to a dealer open day yesterday, they have a number of different demo rooms, but all their projector displays use XD screens. This was really handy for me as two of them have the same 3 metre/10' wide 2.40:1 size I'm going to build using my XD material (which arrived perfectly intact from Ireland).

I really got a good feel for how far back I need to be before I can't see the weave and it's well within my proposed seating distance of 13'. They had Sony VW520ES and the older VW1000ES (on a 4.5 metre wide screen ) so I saw the XD with brighter projectors than my own X500. I think I'll be fine. 

I also demo'd a stereo set up that used the same MK 300 series speakers that I have (it's the same place my used ones came from so not a surprise to me that they had a set on demo). The XD screen didn't seem to make _any_ difference to the sound, which is a great take away too.

One demo room had a TV with in wall speakers below it (not dissimilar to my previous set up). I noticed the difference straight away compared to the AT screen demo rooms; just as well I'll be able to have my speakers in the 'right place' once my room is done.  I can't wait...


----------



## vantage78

Hi all. I'm really interested in the Ambient-Visionaire material to be used with a JVC RS600. I have a dedicated theater area of 23'x14'; it is light controlled, but I'd prefer an ALR screen as I'd like watch material with lights on. 

There are 2 rows of seating, first row 13.57' away from where a screen would be mounted, and the second row 19.36' away.

1) What's the thinnest bezel fixed frame available for the Ambient-Visionaire 1.3 material? Looking for a scope screen.
2) Related to #1 , what is the largest size available? 
3) Does anyone know the Vertical Half Gain Angle for the 1.3 material?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## bkeeler10

Just wanted to give a shout-out to Chris. My company (Phase Technology) was exhibiting at CEDIA a couple weeks ago, and we had a Seymour Screen Excellence screen on loan from Chris for the show. During setup, Chris came by to see how it was going with the screen, and offered to send his calibrator over to calibrate our projector when we were ready (which we graciously took him up on). Later, toward the end of the first day of the show, he dropped by again to be sure we were satisified with how things were looking. And then, after the show was over, he and two of his guys came over and took the screen down and packed it for us (he may have been hoping to avoid damage to it, but still . . .). So I guess good customer service knows no bounds for Chris. Thanks a bunch!


----------



## chriscmore

vantage78 said:


> Hi all. I'm really interested in the Ambient-Visionaire material to be used with a JVC RS600. I have a dedicated theater area of 23'x14'; it is light controlled, but I'd prefer an ALR screen as I'd like watch material with lights on.
> 
> There are 2 rows of seating, first row 13.57' away from where a screen would be mounted, and the second row 19.36' away.
> 
> 1) What's the thinnest bezel fixed frame available for the Ambient-Visionaire 1.3 material? Looking for a scope screen.
> 2) Related to #1 , what is the largest size available?
> 3) Does anyone know the Vertical Half Gain Angle for the 1.3 material?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


1. 2.6" wide
2. In scope ratio, currently we can make 136.8" wide, 2.37 ratio image. or 138.5"w in 2.40 ratio. I'm working to hit 140" wide in a couple more months, firstly with the Black 1.2.
3. The vertical half-gain angles are the same as the horizontal, as the material is non-directional.

Generally I recommend the Black 1.2 as it's my favorite overall. It has some gain for pop, does a great job with black levels and ALR, and yields the smoothest image. It's the material that Scott Wilkenson said (with Wolf Cinema's D-ILA) was the best projected image at CEDIA, with by far the best black levels. The JVC engineers had to check out the combo, as it was performing better than their displays were.

With any ALR, you want the longest throw available if that is still flexible for you.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## vantage78

chriscmore said:


> 1. 2.6" wide
> 2. In scope ratio, currently we can make 136.8" wide, 2.37 ratio image. or 138.5"w in 2.40 ratio. I'm working to hit 140" wide in a couple more months, firstly with the Black 1.2.
> 3. The vertical half-gain angles are the same as the horizontal, as the material is non-directional.
> 
> Generally I recommend the Black 1.2 as it's my favorite overall. It has some gain for pop, does a great job with black levels and ALR, and yields the smoothest image. It's the material that Scott Wilkenson said (with Wolf Cinema's D-ILA) was the best projected image at CEDIA, with by far the best black levels. The JVC engineers had to check out the combo, as it was performing better than their displays were.
> 
> With any ALR, you want the longest throw available if that is still flexible for you.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris



Hi Chris, thanks for the response! Some follow-up questions:

1) I'll definitely look into the Black 1.2. However, it seems to have a constraint of 2x the width of the screen for the minimum throw. For the size I am considering, 141" diagonal, a 2 x 130" W min throw would put me at 21.7'. I'm currently prewired for the projector to be mounted at 16.8'; I always thought if I move it back to 21' or so, I'd be losing image brightness? 

2) How does vertical half-gain correspond to vertical viewing angle? Per my calculations with a 141" diagonal screen with a 54.8" high viewing area, I'm probably going to achieve a 16.15 degree vertical viewing angle for my first row, 8.52 degrees vertical viewing angle for my back row. Would a AV 1.3 or a AV 1.2 be ok considering those vertical viewing angles?

I appreciate the insight!


----------



## J.P

Comparison between XD (left) and Studiotek100 (Right) JVC/X7000. My XD-sample is 24inx24in, while my Studiotek-100 is 133"diagonal 2.35:1.

Projektor is in focus, the picture represents largely how I experience the difference in reality. It may seem like the projector is out of focus, but the "softness" you are seeing is a weakness from the camera.

XD has a slightly more shiny surface/texture, almost "sparkly" I would imagine this is to keep a good reflective surface, and as close to 1 in gain as possible despite perforated.
One can see on the picture that XD-screen actually visually stand out as slightly more defined in the edges. On the other hand one can clearly see the pixels on the ST-screen, but certainly not on the XD-screen, the square-pixels are drowning between the perforation on the XD. 

On sitting distance(13,8 feet) generally speaking both screens look similar, both in detail and brightness. BUT with ST being a tad brighter, and a slightly slightly less "muddy" look, a bit more solid look on the ST(with eye) This is me being picky) And we have to remember that the ST-100 is a very good solid screen, i would say almost perfect/reference.

The XD is probably a very good candidate for people looking for a perforated screen. 
I also have other modern-"4K"perforated screen samples here, but the XD stands out with its thickness,robustness and reflection(gain)

This is my personal experience, and not intended as a blueprint for others to follow. One should get some samples home before deciding


----------



## deromax

I would argue that the slight loss of sharpness is a slight price to pay for the huge benefits of having the speakers behind the screen!


----------



## Romans828

I'm trying to decide between a Center Stage XD and Enlighter 4K. Front row seating distance is around 11 feet. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


----------



## Romans828

Also, what is the difference between the Center Stage XD and the Enlightor-Bright?


----------



## nathan_h

Romans828 said:


> I'm trying to decide between a Center Stage XD and Enlighter 4K. Front row seating distance is around 11 feet. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


That's borderline. You will really want to get samples of both and test.

It will also be much easier to light up the XD, so if brightness is needed, that's an important factor.


----------



## J.P

deromax said:


> I would argue that the slight loss of sharpness is a slight price to pay for the huge benefits of having the speakers behind the screen!


For many, this will be true and the right decision. No doubt. And the XD is a very good compromise.

But I would also say that the room itself (dimensions) and type/size of speakers used, should also play a role when deciding to put the speakers behind the screen, or not. Of course, lots of personal preferences also play a big part here.

Personally I find it hard to give up the extra picture fidelity Studiotek-100 is able to give me. There is simply something effortless and correct, the screen is not there at all. It does not draw attention, it is completely invisible. It makes you quickly forget the screen and instead focus on other aspects/upgrades regarding your picture quality.

That said, i think it is an unrealistic expectation thinking that any perforated screen should be as good as a solid "reference"-screen...


----------



## chriscmore

Romans828 said:


> I'm trying to decide between a Center Stage XD and Enlighter 4K. Front row seating distance is around 11 feet. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


At that seating distance, I would recommend the Center Stage UF. That's what I use for that distance.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

J.P said:


> There is simply something effortless and correct, the screen is not there at all. It does not draw attention, it is completely invisible. It makes you quickly forget the screen and instead focus on other aspects/upgrades regarding your picture quality.
> 
> That said, i think it is an unrealistic expectation thinking that any perforated screen should be as good as a solid "reference"-screen...


When you have the correct material chosen for the application, it will be completely invisible. I would recommend the Center Stage UF in your case, or perhaps the Enlightor-4K if you've not evaluated it.

As they are not "perforated", both are "reference" screens, used in mastering studios such as Lucasfilm, Skywalker Ranch, among dozens more. 

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## J.P

chriscmore said:


> When you have the correct material chosen for the application, it will be completely invisible. I would recommend the Center Stage UF in your case, or perhaps the Enlightor-4K if you've not evaluated it.
> 
> As they are not "perforated", both are "reference" screens, used in mastering studios such as Lucasfilm, Skywalker Ranch, among dozens more.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks. I should been clearer, i meant all acoustical screens both woven/perforated. I have a sample of the UF-screen and also the UltraWave-6 from Dreamscreen(the one used at Cedia/Alcon this year) Both fine "woven" screens, its just that i personally put picture before sound.
Everything is a compromise, the more transparent a screen is to sound, the more transparent it is to light. As with all such screens, it has its pros and cons. Acoustically transparent screens are not for everyone, but they do serve a definite need for many, and a "no brainer" for dedicated room where width is limited.


----------



## vantage78

vantage78 said:


> Hi Chris, thanks for the response! Some follow-up questions:
> 
> 1) I'll definitely look into the Black 1.2. However, it seems to have a constraint of 2x the width of the screen for the minimum throw. For the size I am considering, 141" diagonal, a 2 x 130" W min throw would put me at 21.7'. I'm currently prewired for the projector to be mounted at 16.8'; I always thought if I move it back to 21' or so, I'd be losing image brightness?
> 
> 2) How does vertical half-gain correspond to vertical viewing angle? Per my calculations with a 141" diagonal screen with a 54.8" high viewing area, I'm probably going to achieve a 16.15 degree vertical viewing angle for my first row, 8.52 degrees vertical viewing angle for my back row. Would a AV 1.3 or a AV 1.2 be ok considering those vertical viewing angles?
> 
> I appreciate the insight!



Hi Chris, I'm following up with my 2 queries; any insight? thanks!


----------



## chriscmore

vantage78 said:


> Hi Chris, thanks for the response! Some follow-up questions:
> 
> 1) I'll definitely look into the Black 1.2. However, it seems to have a constraint of 2x the width of the screen for the minimum throw. For the size I am considering, 141" diagonal, a 2 x 130" W min throw would put me at 21.7'. I'm currently prewired for the projector to be mounted at 16.8'; I always thought if I move it back to 21' or so, I'd be losing image brightness?
> 
> 2) How does vertical half-gain correspond to vertical viewing angle? Per my calculations with a 141" diagonal screen with a 54.8" high viewing area, I'm probably going to achieve a 16.15 degree vertical viewing angle for my first row, 8.52 degrees vertical viewing angle for my back row. Would a AV 1.3 or a AV 1.2 be ok considering those vertical viewing angles?
> 
> I appreciate the insight!


1) The 2x throw distance is recommended for uniformity. It's just a guideline that can be pushed. The eye is logarithmic in response, so it takes a surprisingly high amount of nonuniformity to create visible hotspotting. You may be losing some brightness by moving the projector back, but any ALR screen will benefit from a longer throw. So, I'd say do what you can (e.g. mount one stud back, or move it back if it's not that big a deal) but I wouldn't conduct major surgery to accommodate that recommendation.

The AV1.3 would exhibit better uniformity, but the AV1.2 is a smoother, less reflective look.

2) Our ALR materials are nondirectional, in that they have the same response vertically as horizontally. Your vertical angles are not an issue at all.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## deromax

Anyone know if any of the Seymour screens can be used for rear projection? I fully understand that rear projection is inherently incompatible with speakers behind a screen (duh!) but I may have a special application where a screen may be used front OR rear for different setups. Thanks!


----------



## BrolicBeast

Ladies and Gents--the Seymour Screen Experience is in full effect:

Size and Model: 12' wide curved Seymour Centerstage XD | Aspect Ratio: 16:9 screen | Masking: 2:37 via magnetic panels:


----------



## chriscmore

deromax said:


> Anyone know if any of the Seymour screens can be used for rear projection? I fully understand that rear projection is inherently incompatible with speakers behind a screen (duh!) but I may have a special application where a screen may be used front OR rear for different setups. Thanks!


We don't have any rear projection screens at this time. A thin vinyl screen can be used on both sides if it doesn't have a black back or other opacity layer. Our Glacier screens do have opacity built into them, as normally translucence isn't an advantage.. The typical white vinyl screens are quite translucent, as they allow quite a bit of "blow-through."

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Hey Brolic, how are the panels fitting? Each corner set allows about 1/8"of adjustability if you need to slightly adjust the width or height. The goal is to have them barely, if at all, touching each other.

Pointer: When removing, break the left/right pair up by hinging the first one out, as if it was hinged on the frame. This keeps the panel you're pulling out from touching the other panel. Once that motion is used, they're super easy, but we caution against just grab-and-pulling.

Regardless, let me know if you need anything.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## BrolicBeast

chriscmore said:


> Hey Brolic, how are the panels fitting? Each corner set allows about 1/8"of adjustability if you need to slightly adjust the width or height. The goal is to have them barely, if at all, touching each other.
> 
> Pointer: When removing, break the left/right pair up by hinging the first one out, as if it was hinged on the frame. This keeps the panel you're pulling out from touching the other panel. Once that motion is used, they're super easy, but we caution against just grab-and-pulling.
> 
> Regardless, let me know if you need anything.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hey Chris! I haven't yet tried the panels yet because I need to install the bottom brackets to make the screen perfectly plumb. I hope to get to that this weekend. I just been sitting in awe and staring at the screen every couple of days though over the last week. 

--Posted via Tapatalk, which actually is pretty cool.


----------



## RicardoD

Do you know if anyone has mounted a retractable Seymour screen in the ceiling with a DIY trap door mechanism? Seymour screen is perfect for my intended application but WAF will require invisible appearance in the ceiling, ideally with a trap door and not one open long slot.


----------



## chriscmore

I seem to recall a few. What's required is a sequential control, so that the retractable (120v) motor can't operate until the trap door motor (usually dc) is finished operating. ESI used to make a RP60 box that was sequential, but both motor A and B are 120v controls. I have one on hand.

We typically recommend drop slots, as they never fail. Also, make sure you keep the space accessible.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## apcreek

The width of my wall is 3214mm and a Seymour screen I've been considering is 3183mm total width. 

Am I going to have any problems hanging the fixed frame with very little clearance? I'm not sure how they fix to the wall. 

Thanks


----------



## ellisr63

apcreek said:


> The width of my wall is 3214mm and a Seymour screen I've been considering is 3183mm total width.
> 
> Am I going to have any problems hanging the fixed frame with very little clearance? I'm not sure how they fix to the wall.
> 
> Thanks


As long as you are making a screen with grommets on the front I think you will be OK, as you can remove the o-rings to get in the area behind the screen if you have to. You could also hang the screen and have a hinge (or something) so you can lift the screen up to get at the back area, but then you are going to have to make sure everything is perfectly aligned, and that your walls are perfectly straight to prevent scraping on the walls.

IMO making it fixed with grommets would be the best in your situation. How do you plan to matt the screen frame?


----------



## apcreek

ellisr63 said:


> As long as you are making a screen with grommets on the front I think you will be OK, as you can remove the o-rings to get in the area behind the screen if you have to. You could also hang the screen and have a hinge (or something) so you can lift the screen up to get at the back area, but then you are going to have to make sure everything is perfectly aligned, and that your walls are perfectly straight to prevent scraping on the walls.
> 
> IMO making it fixed with grommets would be the best in your situation. How do you plan to matt the screen frame?


This will be the first screen I have ever constructed. I was planning on putting it together on the carpet floor, room length wise and then swinging it round to hang on the wall width wise.


----------



## ellisr63

apcreek said:


> This will be the first screen I have ever constructed. I was planning on putting it together on the carpet floor, room length wise and then swinging it round to hang on the wall width wise.


Unless you use grommets or make it like a screen door is with a groove, I would make some hinges of some sort so you could place it up against the wall, and then raise it up enough to be able to grab it. Then you could easily attach it to a board mounted to the ceiling...otherwise it is going to be difficult to get to the back if you need to. You wouldn't have to get fancy with a hinge... you could even get 3 door hinges, then when you want to get behind the screen just grab a piece of wood to hold it while you are working behind the screen (or you could even put some hooks in the ceiling that you could lift the screen up to attach to the hooks with some loops on the screen frame).Just my opinion.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I can't wait to join this club, though I've had the material for ages (brand new still in the tube/polythene wrapping and I'm the 3rd owner ), working on the room has meant it's sat waiting to be fitted. 

Last night we got to the stage of putting up the black backing. I used a quality speaker grille cloth that found and it went up really well. Since I may want to get behind the screen I used black plasterboard (sheetrock) screws and made two wooden vertical strips to clamp each end, rather than staples. My OH is much better working with fabric than me, so the neat job is down to her...I just take the glory for the construction behind. 

The plan is to make the screen like a large box canvas as the sides will be visible when the projector isn't in use. Eventually I will add a fold down panel behind the TV which will be wallpapered (black Devore velvet on the reverse side) so that it looks less like a screen when not in use. I've also installed colour changing Philips Hue lights in the pelmet above (another wallpaper covered/Devore backed panel will be added that swings upwards to cover the lights during projector viewing will be made eventually).

I've just attached thumbnail pictures for now as I can never get full size to work on here. The TV is on an electric lift to move it out of the way for projector viewing: It worked out much cheaper than importing an electric tab tensioned XD screen and I feel it adds to the 'wow' effect. 

Hopefully I'll be able to post the finished XD screen in a few days too, in time for Christmas.


----------



## Fazzz

My 115" premier screen with UF just showed up yesterday. Just waiting for my carpet to get installed and then I'm ready to get the screen up. Can't wait. I was going to DIY the screen but decided against it to make sure the one thing that arguably matters the most in the room gets done right. Just looked at the velvet-wrapped frame and this things looks awesome.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I got my XD screen fitted to a DIY wooden frame just before Christmas. I wrapped the wood using some self adhesive black velour that I bought and then didn't use for another job. The pictures show a few stages of construction.

It's the first time I've done this, so I wasn't surprised to find some waves. My OH is more used to fabric than me, so we have left it to 'drop' but hasn't improved so we will re-do it over the Christmas/New Year break. However, as bad as it looks under downlights, it's barely noticeable when watching a film, so it hasn't spoilt my holiday viewing.

I'm really pleased with the way that voices now come directly from the screen. Despite that I haven't yet installed my planned black velvet electric side curtains the image looks less washed out than my previous non AT Beamax matt white screen. I'm also impressed at how bright it looks (though I haven't done a proper calibration yet).

I'll save the final pictures for when we get the waves stretched out, but a few pictures attached of the set up so far.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Today we had another go and re-stretched the screen material and refixed it in place. Much better this time (we had a big wave on the bottom right previously). Although the wave didn't show when watching a film, I'm happy that it's turned out so well this time. The down lights are very good at highlighting any waves or creases, but it's all looking good now. 

I've got some more work to do for bottom and top black velvet borders (the sides will be left as is), plus some fold down pieces with wallpaper on for when the screen isn't in use to make it look less like a projector screen when not in use.

I really like hearing the voices come from the screen. It even works well for TV as the centre is just above where the TV is when fully raised. For about £350 including wood and black velour backing I've got a great 10' wide scope screen.


----------



## chriscmore

I don't think I've seen one of our customers use a TV lift in front of their projection screen. That's a really great solution. If you could get me a nice tripod-mounted no-tv and with-tv pictures I'd like to add them to the website.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Thanks Chris, just my bit of lateral thinking when the cost of the room started to spiral out of control. I'd already used a TV lift in my previous room but that was just so it didn't show below my old screen when in use.

I'll borrow my OH's camera/tripod stand as my camera is old and has a black mark on the bottom left of every photo. Give me a couple of weeks as there is a bit more to finish and the lower wall will be wallpapered to match the rest of the room.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

And no draping yourself on top of the tv cabinet ala David Brent from The Office


----------



## youthman

Still absolutely 100% satisfied with my 150" Seymour Center Stage XD DIY Screen. Image quality is fantastic with my Panasonic 8000u projector. I angled the fabric as suggested and there is absolutely no moire and even from the primary viewing position (which is 9' from the screen) you cannot see the weave. It's truly an incredible product.

The biggest surprise to me was how thick and durable the fabric is. Prior to installation, I was concerned that the fabric would sag when I raise the screen as it would be completely horizontal when raised. Fortunately, even at 12' wide, the screen doesn't sag when raised.

Here is a new Video Tour of my Home Theater showing the Seymour Screen

























The image below shows the screen in the raised position.


----------



## DavidK442

youthman said:


> Still absolutely 100% satisfied with my 150" Seymour Center Stage XD DIY Screen. Image quality is fantastic with my Panasonic 8000u projector. I angled the fabric as suggested and there is absolutely no moire and even from the primary viewing position (which is 9' from the screen) you cannot see the weave. It's truly an incredible product.
> 
> The biggest surprise to me was how thick and durable the fabric is. Prior to installation, I was concerned that the fabric would sag when I raise the screen as it would be completely horizontal when raised. Fortunately, even at 12' wide, the screen doesn't sag when raised.


I have enjoyed watching the transformation of your theater over the years. Glad the large XD screen has worked out well for you.


----------



## youthman

Thank you David. It has definitely evolved into something much nicer than I ever dreamed I would ever be able to have. Without Craigslist, I probably wouldn't have 1/3 of what I have now. Just too many good deals in Florida not to pass up.


----------



## BrolicBeast

Seymour Centerstage XD reflecting the 4K image of a JVC RS500. I took a leap of faith on the screen size, but the XD has the perfect gain measurements to get me great black levels while retaining a punchy picture.










--Posted via Tapatalk, which actually is pretty cool.


----------



## youthman

Here is a shot of the "Reveal" Lighting behind the Seymour Center Stage XD screen. 3 Outdoor Lighting firing down on the speakers and a blue LED Strip along the bottom angled upwards towards the speakers. As you can see, the LED is much brighter than the outdoor lighting but I like the contrast of the lighting instead of just trying to evenly light up the entire area behind the screen.


----------



## laugsbach

I recently received my Seymour AV Fixed Frame F130: 2.35 130" wide Premier Frame Screen with the Center Stage XD material. First off, a wonderful, doubled boxed presentation with each piece clearly marked with my last name to insure no part was left behind. I could tell a caring effort went into packaging my shipment. Fedex Freight was easy to work with and helped me carry the large package into my house. Assembly was a breeze with the included instructions and I have to say the grommet system is shear brilliance! I had some screen "dimples" that I thought were going to be a problem in the lower left hand side of the screen but they disappeared within 24 hours.

I ordered the masking panels for 1.78 in the Millibel AT material with 1.5" velvet...I love these things! In my bat cave, they disappear after the lights go out and give the 1.78 movies a boost in perceived contrast at my 12' viewing distance. I also ordered the optional magnetic bottom wall pulls as my DIY false screen wall has a bit of a convexed shape to it and these little guys help suck the bottom of the screen to the stud. They also help with the screen staying put during heavy LFE movie audio tracks as I have five 18" subs behind the screen along with four more 18" subs out into the room.

I did my first DIY screen 8 years ago with Center Stage material and loved it. I wanted to go bigger but didn't feel comfortable building a 130" wide DIY screen so I purchased an Elite screen to show the wife that we could watch movies on that size screen. Once I upgraded the AVR to Atmos and added the ceiling speakers, I was ready to upgrade my PJ and screen. The combo of a JVC RS-400 and the F130 Seymour screen is stunning in my 3000 CF theater room!! Thanks Jon & Chris!!


----------



## youthman

No pics laugsbach?


----------



## laugsbach

youthman said:


> No pics laugsbach?


I knew this was coming... 

I have a humble set-up compared to yours and others who have recently posted but I'll get a pic up later today!


----------



## laugsbach

No time like the present...


----------



## Tweeter2002

brian6751 said:


> any owners here have experience with the Center Stage UF material paired with a Sony 40es? I'm really torn between this and another material for my screen choice. The UF seems to be very color neutral while the other one seems to have "slightly" better blacks. Of course, judging from these tiny samples isn't easy either.


I'm also interested, I have the '40ES and looking forward to a larger screen size than what I have now and will need AT screen material to accomplish this


----------



## scottyb

We ran that combo for a while in our HT and really liked it.
Also, with a 45ES


----------



## DavidK442

Quote:
Originally Posted by *brian6751*  
_any owners here have experience with the Center Stage UF material paired with a Sony 40es? I'm really torn between this and another material for my screen choice. The UF seems to be very color neutral while the other one seems to have "slightly" better blacks. Of course, judging from these tiny samples isn't easy either._


Tweeter2002 said:


> I'm also interested, I have the '40ES and looking forward to a larger screen size than what I have now and will need AT screen material to accomplish this



From my experience in a blacked out room, comparing multiple samples, and in fact several different full sized screen combinations, "better blacks" in an AT screen is directly related to "lower gain". I'm using a DLP projector with a contrast probably not too far off your Sony. In dark scenes the lowest gain screen always had an edge, but then looked comparatively dull on brighter scenes. Higher gain materials had the opposite effect. Ultimately I reached an acceptable compromise somewhere in the middle. Though the Center Stage UF had not yet been released when I finished my screen, comparison of a sample since makes the UF material my top choice.


----------



## Tweeter2002

scottyb said:


> We ran that combo for a while in our HT and really liked it.
> Also, with a 45ES


Thanks for the feedback. 
-Do you have the lamp mode in it's brightest setting with the UF
-Have you used a different screen material before going with the UF

I currently have Carl's Place Blackout Cloth that I'm very happy with and concerned that I'll notice a considerable drop off in not only brightness, but image detail.

Thank you


----------



## scottyb

We use low lamp on a 100" wide 2:35 screen.


----------



## IMAGINAERUM

Question to chriscmore:

Fixed vs retractable tab tension. 

Is there any difference in how they appear from start/new? Is a fixed always the best option over retractable regarding flat surface.. Or is it only over time that the retractable will get less "flat"? 
Can you get the retractable to stay flat longer if you keep it down as much as you can or will it still get these kind of problems.

Thanx in advance!

May be going for the F110 UF retractable to my IMAGINAERUM build here in Sweden. I like wide viewing angle so I will sit close. 8-10 feet in first row is possible.

My build: 

https://www.minhembio.com/IMAGINAERUM/


----------



## youthman

laugsbach said:


> I knew this was coming...
> 
> I have a humble set-up compared to yours and others who have recently posted but I'll get a pic up later today!


Humble? Your setup looks awesome. Keep in mind that just by having a dedicated HT, you are probably in the 1% category.


----------



## chriscmore

IMAGINAERUM said:


> Question to chriscmore:
> 
> Fixed vs retractable tab tension.
> 
> Is there any difference in how they appear from start/new? Is a fixed always the best option over retractable regarding flat surface.. Or is it only over time that the retractable will get less "flat"?
> Can you get the retractable to stay flat longer if you keep it down as much as you can or will it still get these kind of problems.
> 
> Thanx in advance!
> 
> May be going for the F110 UF retractable to my IMAGINAERUM build here in Sweden. I like wide viewing angle so I will sit close. 8-10 feet in first row is possible.
> 
> My build:
> 
> https://www.minhembio.com/IMAGINAERUM/


The engineer in me would always advocate fixed over retractable because it's a simpler solution. However, if motorized is what you need, such as I do, then our tab tensioned UF material is especially flat because it has no pvc to have any memory of anything. It won't change over time, as all of our surfaces are fiber reinforced unlike the stretchy vinyl screens. The only tradeoffs I can see with a retractable UF over a fixed solution are 1) cost, 2) forced black backing layer, 3) some pincushioning along the sides. If I were doing spreadsheets where the sides and corners would drive me nuts if they weren't dead-perfect, then I'd stick with an extruded frame. But for video it's not been a concern thus far.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## stefanop

chriscmore said:


> The engineer in me would always advocate fixed over retractable because it's a simpler solution. However, if motorized is what you need, such as I do, then our tab tensioned UF material is especially flat because it has no pvc to have any memory of anything. It won't change over time, as all of our surfaces are fiber reinforced unlike the stretchy vinyl screens. The only tradeoffs I can see with a retractable UF over a fixed solution are 1) cost, 2) forced black backing layer, 3) some pincushioning along the sides. If I were doing spreadsheets where the sides and corners would drive me nuts if they weren't dead-perfect, then I'd stick with an extruded frame. But for video it's not been a concern thus far.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


but should tensioned retractable screens avoid the pincushion issue? I'm actually in trouble choosing my next screen. I've got a retractable Screen Research 90" wide (CP2+BB) and now, after placed an order for the 5000ES, I want to go bigger. Screen Research retractable over 120" do have a giant case and, as I'm in a situation of very low ceiling, I'm looking for substitutes. I saw Seymour retractable and indeed they seem perfect as regard dimensions. I could go 130" or 140" and maintain a 6" case.
So my concerns are about flatness, straight borders and moiree.


----------



## chriscmore

stefanop said:


> but should tensioned retractable screens avoid the pincushion issue? I'm actually in trouble choosing my next screen. I've got a retractable Screen Research 90" wide (CP2+BB) and now, after placed an order for the 5000ES, I want to go bigger. Screen Research retractable over 120" do have a giant case and, as I'm in a situation of very low ceiling, I'm looking for substitutes. I saw Seymour retractable and indeed they seem perfect as regard dimensions. I could go 130" or 140" and maintain a 6" case.
> So my concerns are about flatness, straight borders and moiree.


Tab tensioning gets you flatness. The material design eliminates moire. Pincushioning is essential in a tensioned retractable design to maintain lateral forces and flatness. We construct a fabric screen with patented assembly features, such as fabric velvet borders, which I believe in the end makes a far superior product to a painted roller shade, however non-pincushioned they can paint their lines.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## stefanop

Thank you for the explanation Chris!

Do retractables (Seymour) have a good black backing? Screen is in front of big library (wall-wide)
I'm tempted by UF material because of the smaller texture. I seat 13 feet away so XD would probably be the same, but I'd like to see a flat surface. With ClearP2 I can perfectly see the material from 15 feet away in very bright scenes.


----------



## stefanop

Correction:... With ClearP2 I can perfectly see the weave from 15 feet away in very bright scenes.

sorry,

Stefano


----------



## stefanop

Last two question Chris,

technical differences between Enlightor 4K and UF?
If I'd buy a screen, should I have to do directly by SeymourAV or do you have a distributor in EU? (the problem is obviously Custom Clearance).

Thank you in advance,

Stefano


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Stefano -

The retractables all feature a secondary black backing layer, so your library wall (or flat panel, or white speakers) won't affect the image.

The XD is evolutionarily better than the CP2 in every performance metric, but since you're after a significant improvement and mentioned texture, I'd go with the UF.

Enlightor-4K is the only randomized weave AT material, and has no minimum seating distance. It's used at mastering studios as close as on the other side of the mixing console (~1m). It has no frequency or phase effect with a flat -2dB attenuation across the frequency spectrum below ~30kHz. It would be available to you only through Screen Excellence at the UK division, and they have distributors throughout the EU.

The Center Stage UF is not a randomized weave, it measures about +10% higher gain than EN-4K (and -20% from XD), and has a whiter look. It's good at ~1.5m further, so you're fine here.

We service customers directly, hence our ability to price the product at a factory-direct price rather than through the distributor/dealer model. The logistics of customs clearance is handled through UPS. I don't know what your non-delivery fees would be in addition to the product, because all countries are different. I'm sure your local network of AV enthusiasts has had some experience bringing in US product?

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## stefanop

Hello Chris,

thank you very very much for your kind and tech answer. UF will be the way to go. I haven't received the new projector but I'm sure it's plenty of light and -10% -20 % -30% in 11 or 12 ft wide screen wouldn't be a problem.
When I'll proceed with it, I'll contact you directly at Seymour AV email.
Thank you again!

Stefano


----------



## genesis_avs

*Cutting it too close?*

I have a small 80" x 45" viewable frame. If I wanted to be super cheap, would I be able to get away with ordering 4ft of Center Stage UF? So, the fabric would be 84" x 48" and my spline would be about 1" in on all sides. That would leave about .5" - 1" on the edges. Not knowing how stretchy the UF is, would that be possible? If I am able to move the splines in .5" inch each, leaving 1" - 1.5" on the edges, would that be enough?


----------



## chriscmore

genesis_avs said:


> I have a small 80" x 45" viewable frame. If I wanted to be super cheap, would I be able to get away with ordering 4ft of Center Stage UF? So, the fabric would be 84" x 48" and my spline would be about 1" in on all sides. That would leave about .5" - 1" on the edges. Not knowing how stretchy the UF is, would that be possible? If I am able to move the splines in .5" inch each, leaving 1" - 1.5" on the edges, would that be enough?


You'd be close, but the material will stretch ~1/2"-1". If you have fine fingers no problem. If you have Andre the Giant hands, you may appreciate more area.

Good on the spline track. A great way to install it at smaller sizes so you get perfectly consistent tension.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## arcticbowman

Just ordered up the H120 in 16:9 with the CW masking panels in UF. Can't wait to get it set up. I'm wondering if anybody has tried to illuminate the speakers behind the UF material? In talking with Jon at Seymour, he's not certain somebody has tried it. I've set mine up where I have the capability, but I'm at the point of needing to figure out what type of lighting. I was planning to just do a LED tape strip along the lower portion. At this point recessed lights would be tough to install, but not out of the question.


----------



## youthman

I do not have the UF material but know it works with the Center Stage XD material. At first, I just had three flood lights shining down from the top but it was pretty dark and difficult to really see "through" the fabric. Adding bright LED's on the bottom really helped out a lot. You can see how much brighter the LED's are as opposed to the flood lights that are up top shining down onto the speakers.


----------



## arcticbowman

Youthman, I've gotten a lot of inspiration for my theater from your build, so I appreciate your posts here and on Youtube. 


Are the LED's you installed basic strip lighting? Are they laid flat or slightly angled towards the screen or speakers?


----------



## youthman

Thanks arctic. I too have gotten a lot of inspiration from the AVS Community.

I initially purchased my LED strip that is around the outside of my screen from CB Concept. After I discovered that the three flood lights were not bright enough, I contacted them and they recommended the SMD5050 - http://www.cbconcept.com/120VLEDSMD5050Rope-Blue.aspx. They ended up being much brighter than the original ones and they are even thicker / wider than the 1st set I purchased. Their customer service is fantastic too. They responded to all of my emails very quickly.

My friend that build my cabinet made an angled 2x4 and cut a groove in it that was the perfect fit for the original LED's but the SMD5050 are wider so they don't fit. I just haven't had time to borrow someone's router to try and widen the groove for the new LED's. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Fazzz

arcticbowman said:


> Just ordered up the H120 in 16:9 with the CW masking panels in UF. Can't wait to get it set up. I'm wondering if anybody has tried to illuminate the speakers behind the UF material? In talking with Jon at Seymour, he's not certain somebody has tried it. I've set mine up where I have the capability, but I'm at the point of needing to figure out what type of lighting. I was planning to just do a LED tape strip along the lower portion. At this point recessed lights would be tough to install, but not out of the question.


Based on my experience it doesn't work with UF. I compared swatches of UF and XD before purchasing and XD is definitely more porous that UF (see below). I have a Premier frame with 114.7" diagonal UF screen. I have two recessed lights behind my screen in the ceiling. 

Here's what it looks like behind my screen (minus some speaker stands I built after I took the pic, but you get the idea.









Here's a couple of shots with only these two lights on behind the screen. 

















So you migtht be asking yourself - "maybe your lights aren't bright enough or they're positioned too far behind your speakers"








I pulled off one of my fabric panels and put a bright painting light under my left speaker shining right up the speaker stand and speaker face. Here's a pic. You still can't see them. 

Now, maybe I'm not placing the light in the right spot, or I need more lights, but I was hoping to have the same effect as Youthman in my theater, but have been unable to reproduce. I believe UF just isn't porous enough to show light back through. It feels like a piece of spandex and I think the holes letting sound through are just too small to produce the desired effect. I was actually able to dig up my samples and took pictures of both holding up about a foot in front of my TV with a basketball game on behind it and full lights on in the room. You can clearly see through the XD, but not at all through the UF. 
XD








UF









Maybe Chris can shed some light on things (pardon the pun) in a more technical way. My screen has been great so no complaints here about anything. Hopefully this helps.


----------



## arcticbowman

Youth & Fazzz, thank you both! I'll give it a try since it's wired up for the lighting, but even if it does work, I'm not sure how often I'd use it. I'll plan to do some bright color LED's along the bottom, maybe even a couple strips.


----------



## DavidK442

Acoustically transparent screen material has a tough enough job already. It needs to allow audio through unhindered while reflecting as much light as possible, without altering the spectrum, hot spotting, sparkeling, blooming or dirtying the image with it's weave pattern.
Now you want it to "reveal" like a women's dress back-lit by the sun. Sheesh!


----------



## chriscmore

Especially with the UF (it may be too light opaque for you in this regard), you need to minimize the light hitting the backside of the screen, otherwise it becomes more opaque. Mark Seaton hit this Star Wars build with a lot of LED strips, but I'd go with more directional if possible. The efficiency goes up if you simply light from one side, maximizing the 3D-ness of the highlighting. Finally, a bit of tension brings it to spec.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## arcticbowman

chriscmore said:


> Especially with the UF (it may be too light opaque for you in this regard), you need to minimize the light hitting the backside of the screen, otherwise it becomes more opaque. Mark Seaton hit this Star Wars build with a lot of LED strips, but I'd go with more directional if possible. The efficiency goes up if you simply light from one side, maximizing the 3D-ness of the highlighting. Finally, a bit of tension brings it to spec.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks for the response Chris. I'll plan to install a LED light strip inside a channel on the bottom and directed up at an angle towards the speakers. If they show up, great, if not, I guess that light switch will just stay off.


----------



## chriscmore

If anyone is going to the AXPONA show, we'll be displaying with JTR speakers (room LaSalle-C) and the new JVC laser-phosphor RS4500 projector. We'll be displaying the new Enlightor-Neo screen material on a 142" wide (159"d) image in 2.0 ratio. It'll be calibrated by Michael Boeker ("desertdome" around here), and we'll no doubt have helpful oversight from Kris Deering (he reviewed the 4500 for S&V) and Ken Whitcomb.

We'll have more information on the Enlightor-Neo's specifications as we get final production material, as I may have some further tweaks to make as we equip the loom. The short story is it's an ultra-matte, mid-gain (for a woven AT material), with improved acoustic permeability. For the AVSers with our Seymour AV products, think of it as a finer, matter version of the Center Stage UF.

I hope to see you there!

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## mtbdudex

Chris was the "mid-gain" for the new material ? A real 1.1 would be sweet!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

mtbdudex said:


> Chris was the "mid-gain" for the new material ? A real 1.1 would be sweet!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That'd be "high-gain" for an AT material. It'd only be possible by perfing a film, which I've been experimenting with.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Ellebob

Will it use the same mounting as the UF/XD so one could replace their current screen material if desired?


----------



## arcticbowman

Even though I haven't cast an image on my new UF screen, I'm anxious to see the new material.


Here are a few pictures of my Premier Frame UF screen. Still not hung up yet as I'm wrapping up a couple more items behind the screen, but I'm getting close.
































Treated the back wall with 2" OC703 boards and a 1&1/2" air gap. Covered with 100% Poly Fabric


----------



## mtbdudex

Chris post Picts here please of the debut of Elightor-Neo, and specs if possible.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## david8613

Fazzz said:


> Based on my experience it doesn't work with UF. I compared swatches of UF and XD before purchasing and XD is definitely more porous that UF (see below). I have a Premier frame with 114.7" diagonal UF screen. I have two recessed lights behind my screen in the ceiling.
> 
> Here's what it looks like behind my screen (minus some speaker stands I built after I took the pic, but you get the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a couple of shots with only these two lights on behind the screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you migtht be asking yourself - "maybe your lights aren't bright enough or they're positioned too far behind your speakers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pulled off one of my fabric panels and put a bright painting light under my left speaker shining right up the speaker stand and speaker face. Here's a pic. You still can't see them.
> 
> Now, maybe I'm not placing the light in the right spot, or I need more lights, but I was hoping to have the same effect as Youthman in my theater, but have been unable to reproduce. I believe UF just isn't porous enough to show light back through. It feels like a piece of spandex and I think the holes letting sound through are just too small to produce the desired effect. I was actually able to dig up my samples and took pictures of both holding up about a foot in front of my TV with a basketball game on behind it and full lights on in the room. You can clearly see through the XD, but not at all through the UF.
> XD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Chris can shed some light on things (pardon the pun) in a more technical way. My screen has been great so no complaints here about anything. Hopefully this helps.



These pics are a huge help, thank you for posting. This answers my question, I'm planning on using a an acoustic transparent tab tensioned screen to go in front of my 70" lcd flat panel but I was very worried about light reflecting off my lcd back through screen to seating area, but was not sure if I can do it. These pics tell me I can. I spoke to Seymour already and was told I would be fine, but these pics solidify what Seymour is capable of.


----------



## mtbdudex

Here's a picture from behind a UF screen a few days ago, as you can see light does go thru but indirectly 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

david8613 said:


> These pics are a huge help, thank you for posting. This answers my question, I'm planning on using a an acoustic transparent tab tensioned screen to go in front of my 70" lcd flat panel but I was very worried about light reflecting off my lcd back through screen to seating area, but was not sure if I can do it. These pics tell me I can. I spoke to Seymour already and was told I would be fine, but these pics solidify what Seymour is capable of.


Per the other thread too, the retractables come with a secondary black backing layer as standard anyway. We commonly drop in front of non-ideal backgrounds (kinda the point of a retractable anyway), and the second layer enables us to use real fabric velvet borders which no other retractable of any kind uses. It's a very different customized design than the painted-border window shades that other companies sell as a "screen."

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

mtbdudex said:


> Chris post Picts here please of the debut of Elightor-Neo, and specs if possible.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think Mark Henniger took the best close-up pics of the Enlightor-Neo. I won't have final specs until around CEDIA when I finish tweaking it for local production, but I'd estimate it at 0.8 (unbenchmarked) gain, more matte and about half the texture of the Center Stage UF. At this point I'm still at the design stage of the thread itself.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## mtbdudex

chriscmore said:


> I think Mark Henniger took the best close-up pics of the Enlightor-Neo. I won't have final specs until around CEDIA when I finish tweaking it for local production, but I'd estimate it at 0.8 (unbenchmarked) gain, more matte and about half the texture of the Center Stage UF. At this point I'm still at the design stage of the thread itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




So slightly after Sept-2017 ballpark timing for Enlightor-Neo availability to Joe Q. Public. 
Ok, I'll design and build my curved screen but wait till then for purchasing material from you. Till then my current solid screen I've used 8 years will suffice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott B

chriscmore said:


> I think Mark Henniger took the best close-up pics of the Enlightor-Neo. I won't have final specs until around CEDIA when I finish tweaking it for local production, but I'd estimate it at 0.8 (unbenchmarked) gain, more matte and about half the texture of the Center Stage UF. At this point I'm still at the design stage of the thread itself.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris, will the Enlightor-Neo be offered through seymourav?


----------



## chriscmore

Scott B said:


> Chris, will the Enlightor-Neo be offered through seymourav?


No, it's too fine to use the Seymour AV's attachment method of grommets and o-rings. The grip channel is the perfect attachment method and is only available via Seymour-Screen Excellence.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Mark had some closer-up shots I think but here's his overall video of the room, which received Best At AXPONA award. Video: 




Thread: http://www.avsforum.com/jtr-speakers-noesis-215rt-7-channel-home-theater-system-best-axpona-2017/

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Dirk44

chriscmore said:


> No, it's too fine to use the Seymour AV's attachment method of grommets and o-rings. The grip channel is the perfect attachment method and is only available via Seymour-Screen Excellence.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hello Chris,

wich means the neo fabric, could be ordered only togehter with a frame right ?

Best regards dirk


----------



## chriscmore

Dirk44 said:


> Hello Chris,
> 
> wich means the neo fabric, could be ordered only togehter with a frame right ?
> 
> Best regards dirk


The Craftsman Series is just the fabric, grip channel, tools and screws. No frame, so you could upgrade your existing screen provided you have a 3/4"+ flat to install the grip channel onto.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## david8613

I got my xd and uf samples, xd on the left uf on the right, my current scteen is an elite. i can see the xd is slightly brighter than uf, but it seems like colors look more saturated on uf, not bad at all, the black backing is defintely a plus. That black back doesnt stop any sound though. Im worried about that?


----------



## david8613

This pic is behind the samples with a white note pad. left side shows light passing through xd screen easily, right side is black hardly any light passing through uf screen. Pretty good seymour!


----------



## RapalloAV

david8613 said:


> This pic is behind the samples with a white note pad. left side xd shows light passing through easily, right side is black hardly any light passing through. Pretty good seymour!


So a light of light is lost through the fabric of the XD but not through the UF, correct?


----------



## david8613

RapalloAV said:


> So a light of light is lost through the fabric of the XD but not through the UF, correct?


Sorry for confusion, i reworded it better now. The uf has a black backing that doesnt let light to pass through and then reflecting off anything behind screen back into seating area, for example, shiny speakers, glass flat panel screens. Very smart...


----------



## david8613

Here is a pic with a white test pattern. Left elite acousta pro 1080p3, middle seymour xd, right seymour uf


----------



## RapalloAV

david8613 said:


> Here is a pic with a white test pattern. Left elite acousta pro 1080p3, middle seymour xd, left seymour uf


You mean right UF dont you?


----------



## DavidK442

david8613 said:


> Here is a pic with a white test pattern. Left Elite Acoustapro 1080p3, middle Seymour xd, right Seymour UF.


It is fun but also a bit frustrating making side by side subjective screen comparisons. Image brightness (screen gain) has such an impact on perceived picture quality that it overshadows other differences.
I found that the lower gain screens looked best on darker scenes with obviously better blacks and deeper, more saturated colors, while bright scenes favored the higher gain material.

Here are the conclusions made by the Accucal group after testing each material:

*AcousticPro1080TM* - This material was very tinted for a screen material. It does have a strong texture and a very open weave used to pass audio through the screen. The weave was also
streaking the image because of variations in the thread density. The sample provided did not
include the black backing that can be purchased with this material so a Seymour backing was
used for light measurements and observations. At 9 feet the weave was frequently visible. This
material would be best for 17 foot or greater viewing distances. Moiré will be more of an issue
with this weave because it is so open as well as the visibility of objects behind the screen if no backing is used.

*Center Stage XD* - This material was mostly color neutral. It does have a strong texture from the weave used to pass the audio through the screen. The weave used with this material is
unusually irregular making moiré more uncommon with it. At 9 feet it was slightly visible. This
material would be best for eleven foot or greater viewing distance. At eleven feet this material
looked very good.

*Center Stage UF* - This material is very color neutral. It is a very fine weave. Very similar to Enlightor 4K, but it has an uneven weave which should reduce the likelihood of moiré even more.
It does have a slight texture from the weave used to pass the audio through the screen. At 8 feet
it was slightly visible. This material would be best for 9 foot or greater viewing distance. At ten
feet this material looked very good. Treble was 2 db down at 20 kHz compared to the level at 2
kHz. The black backing added another 1 db loss at 20 kHz. The audio response effect was a
relatively smooth loss from 2kHz to 20kHz.

https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf


----------



## mtbdudex

^^^^
To do a true side by side visual comparison is impossible in real time, can you guess why?

You need to video calibrate the screen/Projector as a system .

D65 for each, the only real way then is via a DSLR on full manual settings on a tripod, and then take each picture with white balance calibrated correctly, then stack each image with that portion of the screen.
In theory .... 

My other hobby is astrophotography, I always have to color correct the night sky to correct kelvin color temp when I do serious night sky imaging.
The moon is more tricky, sometimes you want it "correct", other times you take artistic license and push its color .... 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

David, any screen that does not have an integrated opacity layer will need a black background. I see the UF has a black backing layer behind it, but so will the XD on top of that screen.

Don't worry about light passing through the screen, as transmissivity need not be a disadvantage. Light level is simply amplitude and since resolution is not lost, no information is reduced. Simply increase the brightness of the projector or enjoy lower black levels. Lower gain screens offer the same projector contrast and in fact in some situations offer some increased in-room contrast performance due to some minor room splash contamination resistance.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## BrolicBeast

Posted this on Facebook, but wanted to post here as well. The picture quality of the 12' wide, curved Centerstage XD--especially in the 16:9 config--is really great. Immersion is unbelievable. So much better than my previous ST130. Click and watch:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BTP_Wkhg6OP/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## nathan_h

BrolicBeast said:


> Posted this on Facebook, but wanted to post here as well. The picture quality of the 12' wide, curved Centerstage XD--especially in the 16:9 config--is really great. Immersion is unbelievable. So much better than my previous ST130. Click and watch:
> 
> https://www.instagram.com/p/BTP_Wkhg6OP/
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


That's impressive. Thanks for sharing. 

Looks like the first row eye-balls to screen distance is about 13 feet, and the screen is 12 feet wide (not diag)? So slightly further than one screen width away.

I'm 9 feet from an 8 foot wide EN4K screen -- but it's 2.37:1 so the immersion for 16x9 content is not like that. Of course, even if I went full 16x9 at that same width, it wouldn't reach the side walls or get as close to the floor as yours -- and I suspect that in addition to shear size and viewing angle, having it feel like it covers almost the complete front wall really increases the immersion.

Very nice! Makes me want to start planning my next theater....


----------



## chriscmore

There's no technical reason to use a curved lambertian/scatter-type 16:9 screen, but I gotta say I'm pretty jelly. They're just too cool. Like walking into an IMAX theater, or making your own for about -$1.9M less.

Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the Official Seymour AV Center Stage thread. I want to thank the AVSers for your support, enthusiasm, and psychotic compulsion to detail. When this thread was created the iPhone was freshly introduced, and while making a bazillion times less impact than that, after over 400k views we've enjoyed advancing screen technology ahead. If as they say copying is the sincerest form of flattery, we must be doing something right.

As always, we're continuing to work on technologies to push your exploding robots further, so thanks again and I look forward to the next ten!

Cheers,
Chris and the crew at:


----------



## BrolicBeast

We thank you for providing us with awesomeness to talk about over the last ten years. When Skynet needs screens for their human farming centers, I'm sure they will scan this thread for instructions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdrucker

chriscmore said:


> Today marks the tenth anniversary of the Official Seymour AV Center Stage thread. I want to thank the AVSers for your support, enthusiasm, and psychotic compulsion to detail. When this thread was created the iPhone was freshly introduced, and while making a bazillion times less impact than that, after over 400k views we've enjoyed advancing screen technology ahead. If as they say copying is the sincerest form of flattery, we must be doing something right.
> 
> As always, we're continuing to work on technologies to push your exploding robots further, so thanks again and I look forward to the next ten!
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris and the crew at:


Just got my 100" AT screen with UF delivered yesterday. Looking forward to getting it installed. Thank the robots for me  . Always good to keep them usefully employed..


----------



## mycview2

Howdy - I am considering a 235:1 seymour dropdown tension screen with the dropdown masking to 16:9

Anybody have a similar set up in this thread and can share impressions?

Thank you!


----------



## ScottJ

mycview2 said:


> Howdy - I am considering a 235:1 seymour dropdown tension screen with the dropdown masking to 16:9
> 
> Anybody have a similar set up in this thread and can share impressions?
> 
> Thank you!


I don't recall anybody here having that version of the masking screen. I have the other form: a 1.78 screen with a full-width mask to 2:35 (CIW).


----------



## BrolicBeast

mycview2 said:


> Howdy - I am considering a 235:1 seymour dropdown tension screen with the dropdown masking to 16:9
> 
> Anybody have a similar set up in this thread and can share impressions?
> 
> Thank you!





ScottJ said:


> I don't recall anybody here having that version of the masking screen. I have the other form: a 1.78 screen with a full-width mask to 2:35 (CIW).


Check out AVS member Dmark1...he has one. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Tedd

mycview2, does your scaler or sources have the option to move the image to the bottom of the screen?


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I made my own frame for my XD material, but being my first attempt I've suffered a few wrinkles (literally). First time the frame twisted forwards as I only used the Kreg screws from the front side, the second we got a big wave on the left side which grew over time. We took it down again yesterday for the third time and I removed the nails from the top and left side, then we _really _ pulled it tight as I put each nail back in one by one and I think we've finally done it this time.  We watched Ant Man last night and the screen is now beautifully flat. 

I still haven't fully finished my room, but I have now got a decent camera, so I will be able to take better photos for Chris/Seymour to use as requested a while back with the TV up and down. 

Here is one taken last night, before the TV was lowered for the film. I now also have 3 metre long black velvet (Devore) electric side curtains that come out to help with washout: They really make a difference to the image, so I plan to add something that will pull out across the ceiling too eventually.


----------



## ScottJ

Tedd said:


> mycview2, does your scaler or sources have the option to move the image to the bottom of the screen?


That applies to the format I have (1.78 screen with CIW mask). I use the Lumagen Radiance's electronic image shift. Projector lens shift could also work. A third option would be to move the bottom of the screen up when moving the mask down.

For the 2.35 screen that mycview2 was asking about, you'd need to zoom or scale, not shift, when changing ARs.


----------



## DRC3

*Just made the jump to AT Screen- Center Stage-UF*

Just got home from Fedex Freight and getting ready to open things up. 2.0:1 Aspect ratio ~130" Diagonal. Going from a 2.35:1 128"Diagonal Carada Brilliant White. By the way Projector is Panny 8000. Excited to finally be able to reposition the center channel and subs

Thanks much Chris and Jon!

Don


----------



## jmone

Q on Harmony Elite control IR control. I've got the RP60 230V Controller, LVT-BUS JP6 and IR Sensor and I'm in the process of setting it up over the next couple of weeks. Trigger is working well, but can I confirm what device to add to a Logitech Harmony Elite to trigger UP and Down for the screen? Is it the ESI RP-60?
Thanks
Nathan


----------



## BrolicBeast

jmone said:


> Q on Harmony Elite control IR control. I've got the RP60 230V Controller, LVT-BUS JP6 and IR Sensor and I'm in the process of setting it up over the next couple of weeks. Trigger is working well, but can I confirm what device to add to a Logitech Harmony Elite to trigger UP and Down for the screen? Is it the ESI RP-60?
> Thanks
> Nathan


Safest bet is to learn the command from the screen remote. I've been using Harmony remotes for the last 12 years, and in my motorized screen setups, I had to learn the command in order for it to work properly. There are usually three commands: up, stop, and down.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Fazzz

DRC3 said:


> Just got home from Fedex Freight and getting ready to open things up. 2.0:1 Aspect ratio ~130" Diagonal. Going from a 2.35:1 128"Diagonal Carada Brilliant White. By the way Projector is Panny 8000. Excited to finally be able to reposition the center channel and subs
> 
> Thanks much Chris and Jon!
> 
> Don


I have UF with a Panny 8000, as well. You're going to love UF. Nothing but rave reviews from me.


----------



## jmone

BrolicBeast said:


> Safest bet is to learn the command from the screen remote. I've been using Harmony remotes for the last 12 years, and in my motorized screen setups, I had to learn the command in order for it to work properly. There are usually three commands: up, stop, and down.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Unfortunately I don't have a remote to learn from...


----------



## DRC3

Fazzz said:


> I have UF with a Panny 8000, as well. You're going to love UF. Nothing but rave reviews from me.


Thanks-got it built...held it up and looks good! Thanks for sharing Fazzz!


----------



## arcticbowman

As earlier described in this thread, the UF material isn't very good for behind the screen lighting to reveal the speakers. I laid down a 16' LED light strip behind the screen and a velvet wrapped 2X2. I doubled the LED light back so I had two runs of the lighting casting on the speakers. Although it doesn't reveal the speakers well, it casts a pretty cool effect, especially when set at a 7 color fade. If I fire up the star ceiling with the LED's, the rear speakers with the LED's and the LED's behind the screen, it gives a pretty cool intro to the theater for folks that are seeing it for the first time. The rainbow effect in the pano picture on the bottom is due to the way the phone took the picture.


----------



## Fazzz

arcticbowman said:


> As earlier described in this thread, the UF material isn't very good for behind the screen lighting to reveal the speakers. I laid down a 16' LED light strip behind the screen and a velvet wrapped 2X2. I doubled the LED light back so I had two runs of the lighting casting on the speakers. Although it doesn't reveal the speakers well, it casts a pretty cool effect, especially when set at a 7 color fade. If I fire up the star ceiling with the LED's, the rear speakers with the LED's and the LED's behind the screen, it gives a pretty cool intro to the theater for folks that are seeing it for the first time. The rainbow effect in the pano picture on the bottom is due to the way the phone took the picture.


Jerry,

Looks great. How close are your speakers to the screen?


----------



## arcticbowman

Fazzz said:


> Jerry,
> 
> Looks great. How close are your speakers to the screen?


They are roughly 5-6" behind the screen.


----------



## schmidtwi

I'm very happy to soon join the Seymour Center Stage XD crowd. I just purchased an XD screen from Jon yesterday - great customer service!


I plan a ~158" diagonal (146" x 62) 2.35 screen to fill the stage in the pic below. I will use 1x4 poplar or maple for a DIY frame. I have an Epson 5040UB (4K eShift) projector, currently projecting on a 135" 16:9 Elite screen in another room. Can't wait to get the new screen built - will post after pics when completed.


----------



## chriscmore

We have the new Enlightor-Neo stock imported from the UK for immediate availability. It's roll width causes a height limitation of around 72". As we'll be looming it locally I'll be making a few tweaks, so as the old disclaimer goes "subject to change," but as it is now it's a fantastic screen material. Higher gain than the Enlightor-4K, much more matte, 0.5dB more AT (still flat), a whiter looking color and while the pattern is not randomized like the Enlightor-4K, its structure is shrunk down so small it passes the challenges I make at demonstrations to come up and put your nose on the material and tell me if you can see anything.

The next show it will be demonstrated at is in the Dolby Atmos room at the LA Audio Show (LAAS) with JVC (their new laser 4K RS4500), Trinnov, and Stark Sound.

Samples are available if you contact me, Jon or Cody.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## RapalloAV

chriscmore said:


> We have the new Enlightor-Neo stock imported from the UK for immediate availability. It's roll width causes a height limitation of around 72". As we'll be looming it locally I'll be making a few tweaks, so as the old disclaimer goes "subject to change," but as it is now it's a fantastic screen material. Higher gain than the Enlightor-4K, much more matte, 0.5dB more AT (still flat), a whiter looking color and while the pattern is not randomized like the Enlightor-4K, its structure is shrunk down so small it passes the challenges I make at demonstrations to come up and put your nose on the material and tell me if you can see anything.
> 
> The next show it will be demonstrated at is in the Dolby Atmos room at the LA Audio Show (LAAS) with JVC (their new laser 4K RS4500), Trinnov, and Stark Sound.
> 
> Samples are available if you contact me, Jon or Cody.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris would the listed gain of 0.95 be the same or better than my XD from you?


----------



## chriscmore

RapalloAV said:


> Chris would the listed gain of 0.95 be the same or better than my XD from you?


Gain isn't "better" one way or another, but the Neo (similar to the UF) is about -20% lower gain than the XD.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Ellebob

Will it be able to have grommets and fit in a Seymour frame or does it install like the Enlightor 4K with the grooves and spatula installation. I am thinking about upgrading my screen from the UF if you think it is better.


----------



## chriscmore

Ellebob said:


> Will it be able to have grommets and fit in a Seymour frame or does it install like the Enlightor 4K with the grooves and spatula installation. I am thinking about upgrading my screen from the UF if you think it is better.


It's too fine for grommets, staples, or other point source loading. It'll be used in the grip channel tension systems that S-SE has.

Compared to the UF, it's as if the structures were shrunk down by 1/2. If you find at your seating distance you can make out any visible structure, then perhaps the Neo would be an improvement. I watch the UF at 11.6' viewing distance and have no plans to switch that to the Neo.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Ellebob

Thanks. I'm about the same distance so good to know.


----------



## pdermody

A question for you DIY folks, specifically ones who had the grommets installed on the XD material. How much give/stretch is there to the material and what distance center-to-center should be allowed for the grommet and post for proper tension with the o-ring? And I guess while I am at it - what are the dimensions of the grommet itself and its proximity to the edge of the material?

I am just trying to figure out if I can salvage the frame of a ST screen as I am not entirely happy with the AT properties of their woven material... I am well beyond the return period, so either salvage it or live with it as its not in the budget to buy another full fixed frame screen at this time... Frame is nice enough though...

-pd


----------



## BrolicBeast

pdermody said:


> A question for you DIY folks, specifically ones who had the grommets installed on the XD material. How much give/stretch is there to the material and what distance center-to-center should be allowed for the grommet and post for proper tension with the o-ring? And I guess while I am at it - what are the dimensions of the grommet itself and its proximity to the edge of the material?
> 
> I am just trying to figure out if I can salvage the frame of a ST screen as I am not entirely happy with the AT properties of their woven material... I am well beyond the return period, so either salvage it or live with it as its not in the budget to buy another full fixed frame screen at this time... Frame is nice enough though...
> 
> -pd


If i remember correctly, I know a guy who got a CAD drawing of his Stewart screen frame and Seymour AV made screen material for it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## pdermody

pdermody said:


> A question for you DIY folks, specifically ones who had the grommets installed on the XD material.
> 
> ...


After searching various threads, and looking over the SeymourAV website a little closer - here is the info I found thus far:

Grommet center from edge of screen: 5/8" (per website)
Grommet center to center of screw/post: 2 1/8" (old post from 2014 referencing info from Chris Seymour)
Stretch I guess is really irrelevant based on ctc dimensions above?

Anyhow just thought I would post up in case anyone is looking for this info later...

-pd


----------



## chriscmore

pdermody said:


> A question for you DIY folks, specifically ones who had the grommets installed on the XD material. How much give/stretch is there to the material and what distance center-to-center should be allowed for the grommet and post for proper tension with the o-ring? And I guess while I am at it - what are the dimensions of the grommet itself and its proximity to the edge of the material?
> 
> I am just trying to figure out if I can salvage the frame of a ST screen as I am not entirely happy with the AT properties of their woven material... I am well beyond the return period, so either salvage it or live with it as its not in the budget to buy another full fixed frame screen at this time... Frame is nice enough though...
> 
> -pd


That's about right. The grommet average spacing is 6", but our grommet methodology isn't that relevant if you're wanting to retrofit into your frame. The Center Stage XD has less than 1% stretch, but the Center Stage UF has a bit more. What others have done is send the current screen to us and we'll match the size and grommet locations for a perfect swap.

The majority of the dimensional tolerance is taken up by the springs or bands used to attach the grommets to the posts. But the grommet spacing and number is more important, which is why we prefer matching what you have while we make the upgrade screen.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## robh123

Hi folks, 

I'm running into a bit of an issue with trying to figure out my new setup. AVS helped me get my old setup (JVC RS45 w/Da-lite High power) by me just reading posts as a lurker, but what I'm running into now isn't as cut and dry. 

Basically, I'm trying to get a wall-to-wall screen like in my old house but this time I want an AT screen. I've been reading this thread, since I'm looking at the Seymour screens, but I'm running into a bit of a problem getting the image bright enough.

I'd like to get a either a 130 or 141" Diag 2.35:1 screen. Looks like minimum throw for that size will be 13.5 and 14.75 feet respectively. I can put the pj anywhere from 12-15 feet pretty easily, so that's fine. However, based on the calc I found, I'm getting 12fL using a 1.0 gain screen. So basically I don't think I can do the UF or even the E4K screens due to the .8/.9 gains, so that leaves me with XD. Based on some of the posts, I'm concerned at a 12-12.5 viewing distance that I'll be able to see screen distortion from the AT weave. 

So my questions are:

Does anyone have a similar set up with either screen that can shed some light?
Am I interpreting this correctly?
At roughly 12ft, will the XD work or will I risk seeing the material?

Thanks in advance
Robert


----------



## chriscmore

robh123 said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> I'm running into a bit of an issue with trying to figure out my new setup. AVS helped me get my old setup (JVC RS45 w/Da-lite High power) by me just reading posts as a lurker, but what I'm running into now isn't as cut and dry.
> 
> Basically, I'm trying to get a wall-to-wall screen like in my old house but this time I want an AT screen. I've been reading this thread, since I'm looking at the Seymour screens, but I'm running into a bit of a problem getting the image bright enough.
> 
> I'd like to get a either a 130 or 141" Diag 2.35:1 screen. Looks like minimum throw for that size will be 13.5 and 14.75 feet respectively. I can put the pj anywhere from 12-15 feet pretty easily, so that's fine. However, based on the calc I found, I'm getting 12fL using a 1.0 gain screen. So basically I don't think I can do the UF or even the E4K screens due to the .8/.9 gains, so that leaves me with XD. Based on some of the posts, I'm concerned at a 12-12.5 viewing distance that I'll be able to see screen distortion from the AT weave.
> 
> So my questions are:
> 
> Does anyone have a similar set up with either screen that can shed some light?
> Am I interpreting this correctly?
> At roughly 12ft, will the XD work or will I risk seeing the material?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> Robert


The Center Stage XD is the highest gain woven screen available anywhere. If you're only outputting ~700 lumens onto a 119.6"w (130"d) screen then perhaps you need to plan on what screen would be best for your situation now. You'll need to figure out which is the priority: smoothness of screen surface or brightness. For your current output levels, perhaps go with the Center Stage XD since there really isn't any other choice for brightness. Then, when you get more horsepower from a projector, you can easily swap out for the Center Stage UF.

Things people can't simply answer for you is: 

* Will 12fL be bright enough? We advise targeting 16-17fL as the limits to where fatigue starts to set in. We calibrate at 15fL. As 8fL will look 80% as bright as 16fL, it's not as bad as the numbers indicate.

* Will 12-12.5' be too close to the XD? There are a lot of people happy at 8', but we advise minimum 10'. The general consensus is that 11-12' is the area where it disappears for most.

The reason the forums won't help much is that numbers one-upsmanship rules the place. People will talk you into specing to Dolby Cinema levels (31fL) and someone will say they can see the XD texture at 16'. Since like speakers everyone holds differing perceptions, the most appropriate method of evaluation would be to check out samples. 

Also keep in mind every screen we make is custom so you needn't only consider 130"d and 141"d. At the smaller end of your range you're at 44 degrees which is right where guidelines say you should be. 

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Schuyler Bain

chriscmore said:


> We have the new Enlightor-Neo stock imported from the UK for immediate availability. It's roll width causes a height limitation of around 72". As we'll be looming it locally I'll be making a few tweaks, so as the old disclaimer goes "subject to change," but as it is now it's a fantastic screen material. Higher gain than the Enlightor-4K, much more matte, 0.5dB more AT (still flat), a whiter looking color and while the pattern is not randomized like the Enlightor-4K, its structure is shrunk down so small it passes the challenges I make at demonstrations to come up and put your nose on the material and tell me if you can see anything.
> 
> The next show it will be demonstrated at is in the Dolby Atmos room at the LA Audio Show (LAAS) with JVC (their new laser 4K RS4500), Trinnov, and Stark Sound.
> 
> Samples are available if you contact me, Jon or Cody.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Are there specs available for the Neo material? How would you compare the Neo to the UF? Less visible weave, higher gain, higher, price, etc...


----------



## chriscmore

Schuyler Bain said:


> Are there specs available for the Neo material? How would you compare the Neo to the UF? Less visible weave, higher gain, higher, price, etc...


Specs are on the S-SE site. Unbenchmarked gain is 0.8. Visually it's similar to the UF if you imagine all the construction details (thread size, weave pattern, texture, etc) shrunk down by half. AT-wise it's the most acoustically transparent weave available, at -1.5dB flat.

Pricing is naturally higher because it's a S-SE product, available from the CEDIA channels. The pricing is dictated by the hardware package it's in, not the material, and therefore it's another option within S-SE's current pricing.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Schuyler Bain

chriscmore said:


> Specs are on the S-SE site. Unbenchmarked gain is 0.8. Visually it's similar to the UF if you imagine all the construction details (thread size, weave pattern, texture, etc) shrunk down by half. AT-wise it's the most acoustically transparent weave available, at -1.5dB flat.
> 
> Pricing is naturally higher because it's a S-SE product, available from the CEDIA channels. The pricing is dictated by the hardware package it's in, not the material, and therefore it's another option within S-SE's current pricing.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Are you able to see a visual difference in image quality between the 2? Hard to justify the MUCH higher price compared to the UF. I understand that the Neo is better for closer distances and better for acoustics.

From I've read on the forum, you own the UF - is that correct?


----------



## chriscmore

Schuyler Bain said:


> Are you able to see a visual difference in image quality between the 2? Hard to justify the MUCH higher price compared to the UF. I understand that the Neo is better for closer distances and better for acoustics.
> 
> From I've read on the forum, you own the UF - is that correct?


For your 12'+ viewing I think the UF is the far better value. If you were really squeezing your distances, say


----------



## Schuyler Bain

chriscmore said:


> For your 12'+ viewing I think the UF is the far better value. If you were really squeezing your distances, say


----------



## chriscmore

Schuyler Bain said:


> My first row is around 9.7-10ft, 2nd row 16ft viewing distances. Do you think the UF weave is distracting/apparent at 10' or less? Seemed fine for me when viewing a sample at 9'7".


No, the UF is designed for that distance. If the sample looked good to you at that distance then that's solid evidence.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Schuyler Bain

chriscmore said:


> No, the UF is designed for that distance. If the sample looked good to you at that distance then that's solid evidence.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Is the UF frame wrapped in fabric or velvet like material? It breaks down into 4 pieces, correct? Is it available with the premiere or precision frame?


----------



## Fazzz

Schuyler Bain said:


> Is the UF frame wrapped in fabric or velvet like material? It breaks down into 4 pieces, correct? Is it available with the premiere or precision frame?


I believe UF is available for both frames. There's a comparison of the two frames at the bottom of this page. http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp

It comes in 4 pieces. I have a premier frame with UF.


----------



## klimo

Got the new Seymour XD 130" screen up and running about a week ago and want to thank Jon and Seymour for their amazing customer service.

I had a tight window to get everything done while the wife and kiddo were out of town for a few days and they delivered! 

My seating is ~9ft in the front row and ~17 ft in the back. From the front, everything looks perfect. I looked as hard as I could to see the weave, and absolutely nothing. I'm actually surprise they recommend >10ft as I have a hard time seeing it from 5 feet. Screen is a touch big for the front row, but we mainly sit in the back row. From the back row it is truly amazing. 

Thanks again Seymour.


----------



## Augmont

*From Elite to Seymour*

Hello All,

I'm in the process of a remodel that will have a somewhat dedicated a family room (20' x 20') with complete light control. The room will have a 65" LCD TV and a retractable 16:9 screen 140"(w), estimated, for movies. My MLP will be around 12' from the screen. Only one (1) row of seating is planned for now with a bar top and stools for the over flow when watching sporting events behind the MLP.

As I look where to allocate my budget for the entire room, I would like input/thoughts from those who had an Elite tab tension screen (CineTension2, Saker, etc.) and upgraded to a Seymour screen. What level of perceived improvements did you have from your upgrade?

Thanks.....Augie

Edit: changed screen width to 140"


----------



## BrolicBeast

Augmont said:


> Hello All,
> 
> I'm in the process of a remodel that will have a somewhat dedicated a family room (20' x 20') with complete light control. The room will have a 65" LCD TV and a retractable 16:9 screen 150"(w), estimated, for movies. My MLP will be around 12' from the screen. Only one (1) row of seating is planned for now with a bar top and stools for the over flow when watching sporting events behind the MLP.
> 
> As I look where to allocate my budget for the entire room, I would like input/thoughts from those who had an Elite tab tension screen (CineTension2, Saker, etc.) and upgraded to a Seymour screen. What level of perceived improvements did you have from your upgrade?
> 
> Thanks.....Augie


Ahhh man you made me go way back to one of my earlier videos from forever ago...i had the Elite Cinetension2 model (you can still hear my NY accent in the video, but it was starting to die). 






I went from the Elite to a Stewart, and then from Stewart to Seymour. Since I went from motorized to fixed, I can only comment on the screen quality itself. The Elite is a great starter screen, but the Seymour is one you keep for life. Well engineered, and better than the Stewart and elite screens. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## bommai

I have a 120" CenterStage XD screen material rolled up for the past two years. I originally bought it from SeymourAV in 2010 and built a frame (although not a perfect one) and was using it hung against the wall (chickened out of building a false wall!). Since I had to move my seat back by 3' for better audio experience, I found the screen to be too small so I bought a 150" Silver Ticket Non-AT screen from amazon. I hung it in the same place that I had the CenterStage before. I dismantled the frame for the CenterStage XD and rolled up the screen. I noticed that the material of the CenterStage has a slight yellow shift compared to the blue shift of the SilverTicket. Is this normal or did my CenterStage XD just become old! I am now trying to see if I can resurrect my false wall ambitions from 7 years ago when I moved into this house. This was precipitated by me buying a JBL 590 for center channel. Currently I am using it laid sideways. I am wondering from forum members since I will be bringing my screen 3' forward, a 120" screen should appear just as big from 3' forward as a 150' screen right now. I am wondering if it is worth it to resurrect this screen material. It is still in good shape but don't know why there is a slight color difference between the two brands. Also, I upgraded to Epson 5040UB and starting to watch a lot of UHD content. I know the projector itself is not true 4K but it does produce some stunning images. Would this 7 year old CenterStage XD material suffice for this?


----------



## Augmont

How reflective is the drop above the 2" velvet border?


----------



## scottyb

It's not, it's the same as the border.


----------



## StevenC56

scottyb said:


> It's not, it's the same as the border.


Hey Scotty! I have a 12" drop on my F105 Seymour Center Stage XD retractable, and the drop material is not the velvet material. I even asked Chris about doing the drop in velvet when they made my screen back in 2011, and he said they couldn't do that. It's the standard flat black painted material for the drop. That being said, it's just not an issue. Like Chris told me-It's the 2" velvet border on all edges of the picture that's important.


----------



## Augmont

StevenC56 said:


> Hey Scotty! I have a 12" drop on my F105 Seymour Center Stage XD retractable, and the drop material is not the velvet material. I even asked Chris about doing the drop in velvet when they made my screen back in 2011, and he said they couldn't do that. It's the standard flat black painted material for the drop. That being said, it's just not an issue. Like Chris told me-It's the 2" velvet border on all edges of the picture that's important.


So is the paint reflective? I asked the initial question as I would like to go the CIW route and use a PR with memory lens and shift and lower the screen more for 2.35 material so I'm not looking so high.


----------



## StevenC56

Augmont said:


> So is the paint reflective? I asked the initial question as I would like to go the CIW route and use a PR with memory lens and shift and lower the screen more for 2.35 material so I'm not looking so high.


It's not reflective. Just not quite as absorptive as the velvet border. We originally had a Mitsubishi HC4000 that I shifted the lower letterbox bar in scope movies to the top of the picture along with the upper bar. (Cool feature-Wish that every projector could do this) That worked perfect and there were no reflections off the drop area. We now have a JVC projector that has really dark blacks, and we still do not get any reflections off the drop area or below the screen for that matter.


----------



## Augmont

StevenC56 said:


> It's not reflective. Just not quite as absorptive as the velvet border. We originally had a Mitsubishi HC4000 that I shifted the lower letterbox bar in scope movies to the top of the picture along with the upper bar. (Cool feature-Wish that every projector could do this) That worked perfect and there were no reflections off the drop area. We now have a JVC projector that has really dark blacks, and we still do get any reflections off the drop area or below the screen for that matter.


Thank you......


----------



## scottyb

Thanks Steven,


----------



## obleo

Has anyone heard of a sale planned @ Seymour for 4th of July? *fingers crossed*


----------



## nathan_h

They usually have some excellent deals at the bottom of this page: http://www.seymourav.com/store.asp


----------



## bommai

I asked this question before and would like to ask again. Is the center stage XD screen that I bought in 2010 adequate for 4K. Is it really recommended for putting speakers behind it. I am still contemplating. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jedi

Posting the following condensed information concerning testing of screen materials from a separate thread to this one, because I thought it might be of general interest...........


I built my theater room in 2009 based around a 130 inch wide, 2.35 aspect ratio viewing screen, covered with CineWeave HD screen material (SMX brand, no longer available). This screen fabric was, at that time, claimed to be the highest gain available among AT woven fabric choices. Recently, I got the bug to upgrade this screen material in hopes of increasing smoothness of texture and the reflective brightness level. I was familiar with the screen material comparisons publication published some years back by AccuCal, which suggested that I might be able to achieve a step up in both smoothness and brightness by going with “best in class” Center Stage XD material as the replacement. I ordered from Seymour AV a sample of Center Stage XD, and they also provided me with a second sample of their UF woven fabric. To get a feel of any additional brightness level I might enjoy, I set up a simple test rig which uses an AEMC CA813 light meter to measure reflective light close to the screen surface. All testing was done under darkened theater room at normal viewing conditions (dedicated theater room, totally enclosed light controlled environment). The image source was 100% brightness level, full frame using 16x9 AR, from the S&M Blu-Ray calibration test disc. Test sample locations were bottom center, chosen in order to help minimize shadow effects from the intruding light meter test lens device and cantilevered extension arm, which were fixed in close proximity to the screen surfaces. This setup remained constant for all light meter lux readings taken of all samples. 

I logged two sets of lux readings, first with the original SMX CineWeave base screen material, followed by the Seymour XD, and lastly the UF samples. As each of these two AT sample fabrics have woven hole penetrations, a black card was placed behind each to be consistent with the black colored materials in place behind the main screen CineWeave base installation. The results, shown in summary below, are averaged readings, computed as the ratio of the metered lux readings from each sample divided by the corresponding averaged lux readings of the base CineWeave material. 

SUMMARY OF RELATIVE SCREEN IMAGE BRIGHTNESS

SMX MAIN SCREEN MATERIAL 1.0000
SEYMOUR AV CENTER STAGE XD 0.9955
SEYMOUR AV CENTER STAGE UF 0.9149

These results, seeming somewhat puzzling, were consistent with my own visual observations during the testing. They indicate there is nothing to be gained light-wise by switching from the CineWeave base material to the Seymour XD. The results also show comparing between the two Seymour UF and XD samples, the relative difference in gain between them, verifies and correlates with Seymour's published figures. Unless something is amiss with the test method used, the measured gain improvement published by AccuCal between the XD and CineWeave appears to be a myth. My testing shows the two Cineweave and XD materials to be nearly identical in gain. I later received from Seymour a third sample, called Enlightor-Bright and repeated the light meter testing between it and the original test results. Testing showed the Enlightor-Bright to be the same brightness as are both the CineWeave and the Center Stage XD. Further, close examination of fabric weave pattern of the Enlightor-Bright and XD suggests these two materials are one in the same.


----------



## skypop

bommai said:


> I asked this question before and would like to ask again. Is the center stage XD screen that I bought in 2010 adequate for 4K. Is it really recommended for putting speakers behind it. I am still contemplating.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I've been using that screen for 2 years now,4K looks great on it,I have a dedicated theater room though also,not sure if that changes anything,I have my center Studio 590 behind it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bommai

skypop said:


> I've been using that screen for 2 years now,4K looks great on it,I have a dedicated theater room though also,not sure if that changes anything,I have my center Studio 590 behind it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




That's precisely what I would like to do. In fact I should have done this years ago but was intimidated at building a false wall. So I build a frame for this 120" center stage xd material and hung it on the wall. Later on I had to move my couch farther out due to acoustic issues and felt my screen was too small. I ended up building a silver ticket 150" non-AT screen from amazon. Now that I have a studio 590 for center (using it sideways right now), I am thinking again about using my rolled up center stage xd. Since it will be 3' closer, I figured the 150" to 120" reduction would be acceptable (not sure about that though). One other concern is the color of the screen. The center stage has a yellowish shift compared to the silver ticket that has bluish shift. Will this matter?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skypop

bommai said:


> That's precisely what I would like to do. In fact I should have done this years ago but was intimidated at building a false wall. So I build a frame for this 120" center stage xd material and hung it on the wall. Later on I had to move my couch farther out due to acoustic issues and felt my screen was too small. I ended up building a silver ticket 150" non-AT screen from amazon. Now that I have a studio 590 for center (using it sideways right now), I am thinking again about using my rolled up center stage xd. Since it will be 3' closer, I figured the 150" to 120" reduction would be acceptable (not sure about that though). One other concern is the color of the screen. The center stage has a yellowish shift compared to the silver ticket that has bluish shift. Will this matter?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I don't know about color shifts of screen types. As long as your Seymour Screen is an AT Version,I don't see any problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kain

chriscmore said:


> We have the new Enlightor-Neo stock imported from the UK for immediate availability. It's roll width causes a height limitation of around 72". As we'll be looming it locally I'll be making a few tweaks, so as the old disclaimer goes "subject to change," but as it is now it's a fantastic screen material. Higher gain than the Enlightor-4K, much more matte, 0.5dB more AT (still flat), a whiter looking color and while the pattern is not randomized like the Enlightor-4K, its structure is shrunk down so small it passes the challenges I make at demonstrations to come up and put your nose on the material and tell me if you can see anything.
> 
> The next show it will be demonstrated at is in the Dolby Atmos room at the LA Audio Show (LAAS) with JVC (their new laser 4K RS4500), Trinnov, and Stark Sound.
> 
> Samples are available if you contact me, Jon or Cody.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Is there a difference between the Enlightor-Neo and the Enlightor Neo S?

Secondly, looking at the Seymour retractable mounts, will it be possible to float the motor/mount (sorry, don't know what the actual retracting motor is called) in front of a wall by 18 or so inches? This is so I can place the speakers behind the screen. I can't really ceiling mount it as my ceiling is too high (about 9.5 ft) and would need to have the screen drop down way too much for it to work (unless you think otherwise).

I saw this picture and it seems the screen with the motor/mount is floating in front of the wall. I will need to do the same thing but 18 inches in front of the wall. What options do I have in order to accomplish this?


----------



## chriscmore

Kain said:


> Is there a difference between the Enlightor-Neo and the Enlightor Neo S?
> 
> Secondly, looking at the Seymour retractable mounts, will it be possible to float the motor/mount (sorry, don't know what the actual retracting motor is called) in front of a wall by 18 or so inches? This is so I can place the speakers behind the screen. I can't really ceiling mount it as my ceiling is too high (about 9.5 ft) and would need to have the screen drop down way too much for it to work (unless you think otherwise).
> 
> I saw this picture and it seems the screen with the motor/mount is floating in front of the wall. I will need to do the same thing but 18 inches in front of the wall. What options do I have in order to accomplish this?


The Neo and the Neo-S are the same. They used the designator "S" and "W" to mean small and wide, which we won't do. We'll have one material, and by CEDIA it'll be milled up to ~120" tall on the roll which is large enough for our consumer lines.

You can float the screen however far your carpentry can handle it. The screen may weigh ~100 lbs, which for loading purposes is no big deal, but the further out you mount it the more torque will be applied to your mount design. If you know someone who can weld angle steel, it will again be no big deal. Aluminum is weaker. Wood weaker still, but all can be overcome with a beefier design.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

bommai said:


> I asked this question before and would like to ask again. Is the center stage XD screen that I bought in 2010 adequate for 4K. Is it really recommended for putting speakers behind it. I am still contemplating.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Center Stage XD is 4K rated at all of our production sizes. It is designed specifically for putting speakers behind it, which is why it's used for production at Lucasfilm, Dolby, etc. 

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## bommai

chriscmore said:


> The Center Stage XD is 4K rated at all of our production sizes. It is designed specifically for putting speakers behind it, which is why it's used for production at Lucasfilm, Dolby, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris



Thanks Chris. I still have the email conversation between you and me from 2010 when I bought the CenterStage XD material. Is that material from 2010 the same you are referring to. So it is 4K capable right. Also any idea why the screen looks yellowish compared to the Silverticket Non-AT screen I am currently using. Just curious. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## chriscmore

bommai said:


> Thanks Chris. I still have the email conversation between you and me from 2010 when I bought the CenterStage XD material. Is that material from 2010 the same you are referring to. So it is 4K capable right. Also any idea why the screen looks yellowish compared to the Silverticket Non-AT screen I am currently using. Just curious.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yes, it's the same material so you're ok.

I've not tested the SilverTicket material, but I've yet to find a color accurate imported screen. That they are blue-shifted likely coincides with their targeting the lower end of the market where blue tinted whites are preferred.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## GoCaboNow

Is the image sharper on the UF material compared to XD? My first row is 10'6" from the screen, but could move to 9' if I decide not to recess niches for the speakers. I am looking to do an 11' wide scope screen. Is the XD a little brighter and the UF a little sharper?


I don't care about a couple DB loss as far as audio properties are concerned. I have plenty of head room. 


Thanks for any help!


----------



## DavidK442

GoCaboNow said:


> Is the image sharper on the UF material compared to XD? My first row is 10'6" from the screen, but could move to 9' if I decide not to recess niches for the speakers. I am looking to do an 11' wide scope screen. Is the XD a little brighter and the UF a little sharper?
> I don't care about a couple DB loss as far as audio properties are concerned. I have plenty of head room.
> Thanks for any help!


Is there an AT screen update coming for that beautiful theater of yours? Will be quite the switch, going from a high power pull down to a low gain AT.
I assume you are now using something brighter than the JVC RS10.


----------



## GoCaboNow

DavidK442 said:


> Is there an AT screen update coming for that beautiful theater of yours? Will be quite the switch, going from a high power pull down to a low gain AT.
> I assume you are now using something brighter than the JVC RS10.


Lol, still running the 2009 RS10.  


The hope is a new pj would be 2x brighter, or more, so could handle the drop in gain - and going from a 10' wide screen to 11' wide.


I think the brightness will work with an AT screen. Current lamp is over 1800 hours and I run the RS10 still in low lamp, and lowest lens aperture. But, for sure 2 ends of the brightness spectrum for screens.


----------



## GoCaboNow

DavidK442 said:


> Is there an AT screen update coming for that beautiful theater of yours? Will be quite the switch, going from a high power pull down to a low gain AT.
> I assume you are now using something brighter than the JVC RS10.


Lol, still running the 2009 RS10.  


The hope is a new pj would be 2x brighter, or more, so could handle the drop in gain - and going from a 10' wide screen to 11' wide.


I think the brightness will work with an AT screen. Current lamp is over 1800 hours and I run the RS10 still in low lamp, and lowest lens aperture. But, for sure 2 ends of the brightness spectrum for screens.


----------



## Kain

chriscmore said:


> The Neo and the Neo-S are the same. They used the designator "S" and "W" to mean small and wide, which we won't do. We'll have one material, and by CEDIA it'll be milled up to ~120" tall on the roll which is large enough for our consumer lines.
> 
> You can float the screen however far your carpentry can handle it. The screen may weigh ~100 lbs, which for loading purposes is no big deal, but the further out you mount it the more torque will be applied to your mount design. If you know someone who can weld angle steel, it will again be no big deal. Aluminum is weaker. Wood weaker still, but all can be overcome with a beefier design.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thank you.

Would designing (and making) something to float the screen be a complex job? Any pointers/recommendations for the actual design of the carpentry? Or would you recommend me purchasing the screen and have someone come look at it so they know what they are designing?

Edit: It's possible to get the Neo/Neo-S in the retractable form, correct?


----------



## youthman

bommai said:


> I asked this question before and would like to ask again. Is the center stage XD screen that I bought in 2010 adequate for 4K. Is it really recommended for putting speakers behind it. I am still contemplating.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My Panasonic AE8000u isn't 4k but I can confirm that the Center Stage XD fabric is perfect for speaker placement directly behind the screen.

You can see in the video below, I have (3) Klipsch LaScalas and (4) Klipsch RSW-15 subs directly behind a DYI 150" Seymour XD Center Stage screen and it not only looks fantastic from 9' away, it sounds AMAZING! Hope that helps.


----------



## chriscmore

Yes, the Enlightor-Neo is available in retractable form. The S-SE line may switch to using it exclusively on retractables as it has advantages for both viewer and maker.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## neverwhere

For anyone who has seen a full size display (vs. sample size) of the NEO material, did you see any moire?

I ask because the NEO is not a randomized weave.


----------



## chriscmore

neverwhere said:


> For anyone who has seen a full size display (vs. sample size) of the NEO material, did you see any moire?
> 
> I ask because the NEO is not a randomized weave.


We showed it at AXPONA with the JVC 4K RS4500 and will soon at CEDIA with Wolf Cinema's hot-rodded version. The weave density is simply too small and dense to moire. I've tested it to 16K resolution on our entire size range and can't induce any artifacts.

We also guarantee results, too.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Aquarian09

Hey guys,

I have a optoma UHD60, looking for a screen now. Considering my budget, I am planning for Seymour Centerstage XD 98"h 16:9 130" diagonal screen. I just want to know whether it will be good for 4K viewing as well ?

Cheers


----------



## klimo

Aquarian09 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I have a optoma UHD60, looking for a screen now. Considering my budget, I am planning for Seymour Centerstage XD 98"h 16:9 130" diagonal screen. I just want to know whether it will be good for 4K viewing as well ?
> 
> Cheers


Though I don't have a 4k projector, I just purchased close to this exact screen and in my research this will do very well with 4k. It was important to me as that upgrade is not too far away.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Aquarian09 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I have a optoma UHD60, looking for a screen now. Considering my budget, I am planning for Seymour Centerstage XD 98"h 16:9 130" diagonal screen. I just want to know whether it will be good for 4K viewing as well ?
> 
> Cheers


What is going to be your viewing distance? Also something does not make sense in your post. A 98" high image is a 200" diagonal 16:9 and a 174" wide 16:9 image. Don't know if you mean 130" wide or diagonal, but I assume the 98" high is wrong. Anyway, if talking 130" wide, then the UHD60 will be pushing it to light up that size screen, once calibrated.


----------



## Aquarian09

Mike Garrett said:


> What is going to be your viewing distance? Also something does not make sense in your post. A 98" high image is a 200" diagonal 16:9 and a 174" wide 16:9 image. Don't know if you mean 130" wide or diagonal, but I assume the 98" high is wrong. Anyway, if talking 130" wide, then the UHD60 will be pushing it to light up that size screen, once calibrated.


I am in contact with Jon from Seymour, he confirmed its CenterStage XD 98"h ..... its a 130" diagonal 16:9. Anyway, am not sure whether its 98"high or not, he just mentioned its CenterStage XD.
So, when you say it will light up that screen, is it good or bad ?  
I am just looking at something which will go good with UHD60 and within my budget.


----------



## BrolicBeast

Aquarian09 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I have a optoma UHD60, looking for a screen now. Considering my budget, I am planning for Seymour Centerstage XD 98"h 16:9 130" diagonal screen. I just want to know whether it will be good for 4K viewing as well ?
> 
> Cheers



The Centerstage XD is superb for 4k at any budget. The woven fabric is my favorite feature...no distortions like what the perforated screens suffer from at larger sizes. I'm 13' from a 12' wide Centerstage XD 16:9, and with a 4k image, and I can assure you that the biggest issue is not screen and projectors, but the quality of the source. _Passengers_: PRISTINE. _The Accountant_? Less so. _Patriot's Day_? Ehhh...best experienced from the 2nd row, even in 4k. 


The CSXD is one of the best choices out there.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Aquarian09 said:


> I am in contact with Jon from Seymour, he confirmed its CenterStage XD 98"h ..... its a 130" diagonal 16:9. Anyway, am not sure whether its 98"high or not, he just mentioned its CenterStage XD.
> So, when you say it will light up that screen, is it good or bad ?
> I am just looking at something which will go good with UHD60 and within my budget.


If it is 130" diagonal 16:9, then your image height is 63.7". The UHD60 has enough light output, once calibrated to light up your screen.


----------



## Ericglo

OK Chris has done it again. The new screen looks really good. I think he said he is getting around .8 gain on this screen. The masking system also is nice. As Mike pointed out to me, it hugs the screen so there is no gap between the mask and the screen.


----------



## J.P

Is the Neo-screen made of "vinyl" or is it some kind of cloth/fabric ?

(Are Neo the same material as UF-Center Stage?)


----------



## Ellebob

The neo is fabric and not vinyl. It is different than the UF, actually a LOT nicer than the UF. I have the UF and now want to upgrade. The picture does not do it justice, it is very smooth in person and without a doubt the best AT screen I have seen for lack of noticeable weave. It will be considerably more expensive than the UF.


----------



## J.P

Ellebob said:


> The neo is fabric and not vinyl. It is different than the UF, actually a LOT nicer than the UF. I have the UF and now want to upgrade. The picture does not do it justice, it is very smooth in person and without a doubt the best AT screen I have seen for lack of noticeable weave. It will be considerably more expensive than the UF.


Ok,thanks. Do you know if Neo-screen is sold thru SeymourAV, and do they have samples ? 
Chris probably know I would like to try this out, but personally i often find the "fabric" screens look a tad dull compared to vinyl.


----------



## wagsgt

Am I looking at this right? If I wanted to do a 92x52" screen I would need to order 5ft?

http://www.seymourav.com/store.asp


----------



## Ellebob

J.P said:


> Ok,thanks. Do you know if Neo-screen is sold thru SeymourAV, and do they have samples ?
> Chris probably know I would like to try this out, but personally i often find the "fabric" screens look a tad dull compared to vinyl.


It is sold through Screen Excellence which Chris is in charge of in the US. I am not sure if you go through a dealer or Chris directly in the US. But I am sure Chris can answer your questions.


----------



## Ellebob

wagsgt said:


> Am I looking at this right? If I wanted to do a 92x52" screen I would need to order 5ft?
> 
> http://www.seymourav.com/store.asp


Call them, I am not sure if its orientation needs to go a certain direction.


----------



## bombertodd

Aquarian09 said:


> I am in contact with Jon from Seymour, he confirmed its CenterStage XD 98"h ..... its a 130" diagonal 16:9. Anyway, am not sure whether its 98"high or not, he just mentioned its CenterStage XD.
> So, when you say it will light up that screen, is it good or bad ?
> I am just looking at something which will go good with UHD60 and within my budget.


98" high is the width of the roll. It will be cut to whatever size you want.


----------



## bombertodd

Ellebob said:


> Call them, I am not sure if its orientation needs to go a certain direction.


Yes and don't forget to account for extra from overlap or other installation excess.


----------



## chriscmore

The Enlightor-Neo is only available through the Seymour-Screen Excellence brand, and CEDIA dealers or installers.

For the record, the material picture a couple posts back was with a top / low-angle lighting and without a reference for scale. With front lighting the material looks far smoother and you can't see any residual patterns. That was the point of the demo, was to come up to the screen and check out the optical fringing and interpixel gaps that were still visible in the $50k Wolf Cinema 4K D-ILA projector. A fantastic projector to be sure, but from a screen maker's perspective it demonstrates to folks that we're not obscuring any information from the projector. If you have good optics and are careful on focus you can even see the stem dimple in a DLP pixel. When the AT screen behaves like a solid screen optically, then we are enable to further practice best video - cinema sized immersion - and of course all the acoustical best practices like our mastering studio clients.

The good news for the Seymour AV line is that the thin 1.5"w fixed frame and new masking screen we introduced will be made available consumer direct. For those that lament the demise of Carada's Masquerade system, we now several slick options.

Oh, and...








(FTR I was standing 2ft from the Enlightor-Neo screen in the background)

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## skypop

Will the new masking system work with Center Stage XD Screens? 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


----------



## nathan_h

Good question. I wonder about that for the 2.37:1 EN4K screen I have. I wanted to get the magnetic panels but apparently those cannot be ordered after the fact, but have to be ordered at the time one gets one's screen


----------



## Ericglo

J.P said:


> Is the Neo-screen made of "vinyl" or is it some kind of cloth/fabric ?
> 
> (Are Neo the same material as UF-Center Stage?)



That picture doesn't do the screen justice without context. 

Congrats Chris on the Cedia award. You earned it.


----------



## Ellebob

The material is fabric and seems like a fine knit material more so than woven. It is not the UF. I have the UF on one of the screens in my home and after seeing this I want to upgrade! It is the closest I have seen an AT screen look like a solid screen. It is very hard to tell the difference. You really have to look very close or magnify it to see that it is fabric. That picture does not do it justice at all. It looks smoother than the cheap matte white solid screens I have seen.


----------



## chriscmore

skypop said:


> Will the new masking system work with Center Stage XD Screens?
> 
> Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


Yes. All our screen materials, be they grip channel attached (S-SE's Enlightor-4K and Enlightor-Neo) or grommet/o-ring (everything else).

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Seymour AV pricing of the new Proscenium motorized masking frame is up. Next I'll work on the product information section in the masking page. When I get the crate back from CEDIA I can take prettier pictures.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## wagsgt

wagsgt said:


> Am I looking at this right? If I wanted to do a 92x52" screen I would need to order 5ft?
> 
> http://www.seymourav.com/store.asp


 @chriscmore is this right?


----------



## skypop

Is the masking available now? I have a 126" diagonal 16x9 XD Screen. 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

wagsgt said:


> @chriscmore is this right?


If you know you can get away with a no-tilt application, yeah, five linear feet would get you a 60" x 98" piece. If you want to do like our fixed frame screens and cut it at a 20 degree with respect to the roll, either you or we would need to start with nine linear feet (108" x 98"), cut your piece and toss the triangle scraps.

For that relatively small size, I'd recommend our Center Stage UF, as you shouldn't need such gain and you'd have a closer-viewing material without having to worry about the tilted cut thing.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

skypop said:


> Is the masking available now? I have a 126" diagonal 16x9 XD Screen.
> 
> Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


It is. I put the pricing information on the page and will take prettier pictures next week when I get the CEDIA screen back.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Wilber

can enlightor-neo be purchased for DIY? currently using UF... would like to try out new fabric.


----------



## StevenC56

Hey Chris! Any more thought about a retrofit motorized masking system for those of us with your older motorized scope screens? Also, is there any way for the Harmony Hub to control the RF on the screen motor? Any kind of converter?


----------



## Bevostein

chriscmore said:


> Seymour AV pricing of the new Proscenium motorized masking frame is up. Next I'll work on the product information section in the masking page. When I get the crate back from CEDIA I can take prettier pictures.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I see the pricing for the Proscenium motorized masking frame is up but is the product info? The only thing I see on the masking page are the manual fixed panels and the retractable masking screens. I am under the impression the Proscenium is for a fixed frame. Is that correct or is it a retractable? If it for fixed screen, when will the product info be online or is there something you can send me regarding the product. I am very close to being ready to order a screen and had previously planned on fixed panels but I may want to go with motorized if the Proscenium will work.


----------



## chriscmore

StevenC56 said:


> Hey Chris! Any more thought about a retrofit motorized masking system for those of us with your older motorized scope screens? Also, is there any way for the Harmony Hub to control the RF on the screen motor? Any kind of converter?


It's on the list, just lower in priority than what we've been working on. Next is a retractable non-AT screen design and commercial-sized masking system.

I don't know of any third-party vendors that can control RF systems. I know some vehicles can learn your garage RF remote, but they're designed to specifically learn those addresses, etc. All universals I know of simply use RF as a carrier within their ecosystem.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Bevostein said:


> I see the pricing for the Proscenium motorized masking frame is up but is the product info? The only thing I see on the masking page are the manual fixed panels and the retractable masking screens. I am under the impression the Proscenium is for a fixed frame. Is that correct or is it a retractable? If it for fixed screen, when will the product info be online or is there something you can send me regarding the product. I am very close to being ready to order a screen and had previously planned on fixed panels but I may want to go with motorized if the Proscenium will work.


It's on the to-do list for sure. This weekend I got up information on the SSE page here: http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/trim.asp The only difference is the availability of screen materials (the S-AV version will be the grommet/o-ring style materials only), online availability, and the S-AV version will include a basic RF remote control and wall switch. You can still get however high-end controls you like, so if you really want thousands of intermediate stops available while you're being driven home you could get that.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## rlarsen462

Howdy all, considering a Seymour Screen to save some money over a Stewart and have heard good things, however I can't find much info on the Glacier White material vs. the Stewart StudioTek 130 G3. I want/need a 1.3 gain screen to take advantage of HDR, with minimal sparkling/artifacts with a fine/smooth enough surface to resolve 4K. Searching this long there there's only one mention of the Glacier White and it doesn't give much info. I do NOT need an AT screen.

Looking at 128" Diagonal Metro frame 16:9 by the way.

Appreciate any insight on whether this would be a good choice over the Stewart!

Thanks!


----------



## mtbdudex

This report 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elee532

Could anyone point me to a good (detailed) set of instructions for a DIY acoustically transparent screen using the Center Stage XD material? Thanks!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidK442

elee532 said:


> Could anyone point me to a good (detailed) set of instructions for a DIY acoustically transparent screen using the Center Stage XD material? Thanks!!


From the Seymour site: http://www.seymourav.com/articles/DIYFixedFrame.pdf


----------



## elee532

DavidK442 said:


> From the Seymour site: http://www.seymourav.com/articles/DIYFixedFrame.pdf




Has anyone tried building this with a narrower frame? Could I get away with 1" x 3" or 1" x 2" for a 135" screen?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidK442

elee532 said:


> Has anyone tried building this with a narrower frame? Could I get away with 1" x 3" or 1" x 2" for a 135" screen?


You were thinking something like this maybe?


----------



## chriscmore

If you go thin with the frame members, then as David points to you'll need to shore up its stiffness in other ways. You can easily add 1/3 and 2/3 center supports. You may also add corner triangles. Remember anything behind the image must be matte black. Going to metal obviously helps, or some folks will stiffen up the wood bits with metal bars like Jamestown does on their frames.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## elee532

DavidK442 said:


> You were thinking something like this maybe?




Looks like an awful lot of ambient light in that space. Maybe I should plan on an ALR screen. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## elee532

chriscmore said:


> If you go thin with the frame members, then as David points to you'll need to shore up its stiffness in other ways. You can easily add 1/3 and 2/3 center supports. You may also add corner triangles. Remember anything behind the image must be matte black. Going to metal obviously helps, or some folks will stiffen up the wood bits with metal bars like Jamestown does on their frames.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Thank Chris! I'm thinking maybe a 1" x 3" with two center supports. I figure I could just wrap those center pieces in the same black fabric as the outer frame? I'm also assuming I could use a cheaper wood for the center supports since perfect straightness is less essential for these two pieces? 

BTW, my reason for this is that I'm thinking the thinner frame will look nicer. Then again, maybe it won't. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bombertodd

elee532 said:


> .....
> 
> BTW, my reason for this is that I'm thinking the thinner frame will look nicer. Then again, maybe it won't.


Depending on how you build it you can have thicker pieces but a thin bezel. You could even build a frameless screen.


----------



## elee532

So, I'm making a screen using the Gallo DIY instructions from the Seymour AV site. I had the local millwork shop cut a route the boards for me. Unfortunately, they forgot to chamfer the inside edge. How big a deal is this? Should I forge ahead and assemble the frame without the chamfer, or delay the project to have it done?

Thanks!


----------



## chriscmore

Since it's velvet wrapped, likely only you will notice any difference. It's a bit more sophisticated to have the image-side edge tapered or chamfered, as it will look less like cheap block frames, but it's purely aesthetic and you'll be the only one that knows. Whether it's worth the hassle of having it done I can't say. Some folks have kit at home and can do it in ten minutes, maybe your millwork shop is an easy detour, or maybe like those in LA simply asking them to go buy 8-32 screws is like asking them to retrieve something from the Mars Lander.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## elee532

chriscmore said:


> Since it's velvet wrapped, likely only you will notice any difference. It's a bit more sophisticated to have the image-side edge tapered or chamfered, as it will look less like cheap block frames, but it's purely aesthetic and you'll be the only one that knows. Whether it's worth the hassle of having it done I can't say. Some folks have kit at home and can do it in ten minutes, maybe your millwork shop is an easy detour, or maybe like those in LA simply asking them to go buy 8-32 screws is like asking them to retrieve something from the Mars Lander.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




So, I decided to try adding the chamfer myself. First pass was with a table saw. It was kind of a mess. 

Next up, I went and bought a router with a chamfer bit. It took a few passes, and made a much bigger mess in my work room than I had expected, but I got much closer. 

A little wood putty successfuly fixed an accident from the table saw experiment. 

Finally, a thorough sanding with my disc sander and some 220 grit paper and it almost looked like I knew what was doing. LOL. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## kendo70433

What is the best/safest way to clean one of these retractable screens? Mine is 7-8 years old and has lots of small bugs squashed on the visible area. Distilled water and a soft cloth?


----------



## chriscmore

kendo70433 said:


> What is the best/safest way to clean one of these retractable screens? Mine is 7-8 years old and has lots of small bugs squashed on the visible area. Distilled water and a soft cloth?


Assuming you have a pvc-coated material like the Center Stage XD, I'd get soapy water, a toothbrush and have someone else place a hand behind where you're going to scrub so you don't put too much denting pressure on the material. Repeat with water and possibly blot dry with a towel. Should do the trick, or you can kick the cleaner up to a Windex like and then rinse it out afterwards. Beyond that you should talk to us for the really aggressive stuff.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Speqtre

*Matinee Black material only for DIY?*

Hey Chris, since you appear to monitor this thread:


Any chance you'll be making the Matinee Black ALR material-only available for DIY folks, like you do with your CenterStage product?


----------



## chriscmore

We've only done a couple orders where we were convinced that their technique would yield satisfactory results. The problem is that this highly reflective surface is simply not friendly to DIY techniques. I'd never use a wood frame or staples and it's difficult enough to implement in the application that I feel that our fixed frame screens are literally the minimum viable product.

If your plan is aggressive enough that we think you'll be happy, we can make an exception. I just want to maximize the satisfaction of folks' experience with our products, as our pride in what we do is greatly influenced by it.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## neverwhere

Mike Garrett said:


> It is called the Trim. Saw it at CEDIA. Looked like a nice low cost powered masking system. As far as powered masking systems go. Also available in a Screen Excellence version, so you can get it with Screen Excellence fabrics, like Neo or EN4K.


Hi @Mike Garrett, what are your thoughts on powered masking systems?

I quoted you in the "the blacker the theater, the better the image" thread, but I don't think you saw it so I am reposting my questions here.

Unless any new and improved acoustically transparent screen materials come out by the time I am finished putting together my home theatre room, I am planning on getting the Seymour Screen Excellence NEO material in a fixed frame.

I just don't know yet if I will go with manual masking panels or the TRIM motorized masking system.

What do you think about the manual masking panels versus the TRIM motorized masking system? Do you favour one over the other? If so, why?

When you write "As far as powered masking systems go," it sounds like you might favour manual masking so I am curious how you will comment on this topic.


----------



## kendo70433

chriscmore said:


> Assuming you have a pvc-coated material like the Center Stage XD, I'd get soapy water, a toothbrush and have someone else place a hand behind where you're going to scrub so you don't put too much denting pressure on the material. Repeat with water and possibly blot dry with a towel. Should do the trick, or you can kick the cleaner up to a Windex like and then rinse it out afterwards. Beyond that you should talk to us for the really aggressive stuff.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hi Chris, thanks for the quick reply. The bugs are all small stuff. So I'll try the soapy water and toothbrush, maybe even just water and the brush to see what happens. Ken


----------



## Mike Garrett

neverwhere said:


> Hi @Mike Garrett, what are your thoughts on powered masking systems?
> 
> I quoted you in the "the blacker the theater, the better the image" thread, but I don't think you saw it so I am reposting my questions here.
> 
> Unless any new and improved acoustically transparent screen materials come out by the time I am finished putting together my home theatre room, I am planning on getting the Seymour Screen Excellence NEO material in a fixed frame.
> 
> I just don't know yet if I will go with manual masking panels or the TRIM motorized masking system.
> 
> What do you think about the manual masking panels versus the TRIM motorized masking system? Do you favour one over the other? If so, why?
> 
> When you write "As far as powered masking systems go," it sounds like you might favour manual masking so I am curious how you will comment on this topic.


Sorry, did not see the other posts. No, I actually favor powered masking systems. I own one. In an evening, I can switch aspect ratios several times and for me, it would be a pain to install and remove the manual panels. This would be less of an issue for someone that put on one movie and then was finished for the evening, but it does not work for me.


----------



## weboperations

Mike Garrett said:


> Sorry, did not see the other posts. No, I actually favor powered masking systems. I own one. In an evening, I can switch aspect ratios several times and for me, it would be a pain to install and remove the manual panels. This would be less of an issue for someone that put on one movie and then was finished for the evening, but it does not work for me.


What masking system do you own? It seems that people either go the DIY route... or the only somewhat affordable option now is the Seymour Trim/Proscenium frame. The only problem with Seymour is that for several months now, they said they would release more information, but they have not done so....


----------



## bezlar

I’m thinking about getting one of the new ust projectors to replace my plasma in my living room. Something close to 100 inch screen. Not any bigger. I need acoustically transparent frameless. Are you guys making anything yet for these type of projectors. Epson ls100. I use one of your screens in my theater room and love it. 

Thanks 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

The thinnest fixed frame screen we have is the new Metro, at 1.5"w. If you check out the assembly manual we recently added you can see the robust subframe the screen mounts to and the removable velvet trim. If it were me, I'd stay with that thin sliver of velvet, as aligning UST projectors is especially difficult. The tiniest of movement changes the overscan dramatically and they typically lack optical shift and zoom controls like normal projectors.

For acoustically transparent UST, you'd definitely want to go with the Center Stage UF, or if you can swing higher the new Enlightor-Neo in the S-SE line would be perfectly smooth. You could check out samples prior to committing, too.

If you really want zero edge, there are a couple options. We could front-wrap a Premier frame like a canvas. We could supply a Craftsman series kit from the S-SE line that would have its grip channel out on the very edge of your DIY frame, which could be trimmed or hidden. Or you could of course go totally DIY with the Center Stage UF and just get the material.

Getting that plasma acoustically transparent is quite the limitation, eh?

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## bezlar

chriscmore said:


> The thinnest fixed frame screen we have is the new Metro, at 1.5"w. If you check out the assembly manual we recently added you can see the robust subframe the screen mounts to and the removable velvet trim. If it were me, I'd stay with that thin sliver of velvet, as aligning UST projectors is especially difficult. The tiniest of movement changes the overscan dramatically and they typically lack optical shift and zoom controls like normal projectors.
> 
> 
> 
> For acoustically transparent UST, you'd definitely want to go with the Center Stage UF, or if you can swing higher the new Enlightor-Neo in the S-SE line would be perfectly smooth. You could check out samples prior to committing, too.
> 
> 
> 
> If you really want zero edge, there are a couple options. We could front-wrap a Premier frame like a canvas. We could supply a Craftsman series kit from the S-SE line that would have its grip channel out on the very edge of your DIY frame, which could be trimmed or hidden. Or you could of course go totally DIY with the Center Stage UF and just get the material.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting that plasma acoustically transparent is quite the limitation, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Thanks for taking time to explain. I’ll e-mail you guys in January when this project will take place. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## EC

*how many hangers does the H100 premier frame use?*

All,

I will be purchasing a H100 (100" wide image, 106.7" wide including frame) Premier frame and XD screen shortly. I am currently building the frame which will have hinges at the top. The hinged supporting frame and the Premier H100 screen/screen frame that it rest on can be "opened" upwards. I want to ensure the hinge location does not interfere with the placement of the screen hangers. So as per the title: 

Does the H100 use two 18" hangers or one 30" hanger?

Thanks.


----------



## chriscmore

Standard is one 30" hanger for that size. If you'd prefer two 18" hangers, just let us know and we'll change the order.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## EC

chriscmore said:


> Standard is one 30" hanger for that size. If you'd prefer two 18" hangers, just let us know and we'll change the order.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris,

thanks, the 30" hanger will be fine. This helps as I now can properly place the hinges in locations where the hanger won't be. Once I finish the hinged screen frame and the other pieces of the theatre that create saw dust (riser, baseboards, speaker stands etc), I will order the screen.

Eric


----------



## Theatre

Sorry to ask this if it's off topic or has been answered before, but I couldn't find the information: is there a convenient way to purchase Seymour screens in Europe? (Specifically, I'm looking into H100 Retractable Electric Center Stage.) Or must one tackle the direct purchase from the US and any additional costs/duties/taxes that may incur?


----------



## chriscmore

Theatre said:


> Sorry to ask this if it's off topic or has been answered before, but I couldn't find the information: is there a convenient way to purchase Seymour screens in Europe? (Specifically, I'm looking into H100 Retractable Electric Center Stage.) Or must one tackle the direct purchase from the US and any additional costs/duties/taxes that may incur?


We ship world-wide no problem. At standard, we get a price quotation for you using as comprehensive a shipping possible, short of paying duties and taxes. The quote includes door-to-door delivery and customs clearance services. The extra non-delivery fees and taxes are harder for us to get accurate pricing on beforehand, so those costs get settled up by you with your local UPS, DHL or FedEx that contacts you. 

You should contact Jon who can get some estimates for you and see what's involved.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Theatre

chriscmore said:


> We ship world-wide no problem. At standard, we get a price quotation for you using as comprehensive a shipping possible, short of paying duties and taxes. The quote includes door-to-door delivery and customs clearance services. The extra non-delivery fees and taxes are harder for us to get accurate pricing on beforehand, so those costs get settled up by you with your local UPS, DHL or FedEx that contacts you.


Thanks for the fast reply. I was aware of the possibility to ship the screens directly from the US, but that inevitably incurs the customs duties, perhaps assorted handling fees and certainly the relatively high VAT (which, if I remember correctly, is calculated from the total sum including the shipping charges). I guess my question was an expression of hope that there was a convenient way of shipping the screens to the final customer from somewhere in Europe (e.g. from your Finnish distributor), which would cut down on the cost.

Anyway, I suppose from your post and the website that Jon Kaisand is the person to contact to get a better estimate of the total cost. I have few qualms about the quality of your screens, it's just a question of whether I can (choose to) afford one of them.


----------



## Reference_head

Hello Im looking for some info on Seymour center stage "125 2.35 AT SCREEN (motorized)

Looking for a ball park on what this might sell for used (great condition no issues). cost new was around 2600. I have no clue what used screens might price at. Thanks for any help...


----------



## chriscmore

Usually we price B-stock items that are used or demo at 1/2 normal price. Typically your location and shipping the screen is the bigger issue. I can list it on the site if you'd like.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Reference_head

chriscmore said:


> Usually we price B-stock items that are used or demo at 1/2 normal price. Typically your location and shipping the screen is the bigger issue. I can list it on the site if you'd like.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Sounds good. What would need from me?


----------



## chriscmore

Email me at [email protected] with details, pics, etc. and I'll add it to the site.

Chris


----------



## kendo70433

kendo70433 said:


> What is the best/safest way to clean one of these retractable screens? Mine is 7-8 years old and has lots of small bugs squashed on the visible area. Distilled water and a soft cloth?



I got amost all of the bugs off with just water. So I left it at that. Remember to do the back side as well. A squished bug is going to make deposits on both surfaces. 


Ken


----------



## cshuff

Hi Chris,

Are you guys having production issues with the Proscenium screens? Haven't heard much since my Nov 18th order.

Thanks,
Chad


----------



## weboperations

cshuff said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> Are you guys having production issues with the Proscenium screens? Haven't heard much since my Nov 18th order.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chad


I spoke to him personally at CES two days ago and he basically said they are building one for a certain review site. I asked why there wasn't much info released on it and he specifically said "because we are still building it". As if the first production unit hasn't even left the assembly line yet. It's like the Tesla Model 3 was a few months ago. Lol


----------



## cshuff

weboperations said:


> I spoke to him personally at CES two days ago and he basically said they are building one for a certain review site. I asked why there wasn't much info released on it and he specifically said "because we are still building it". As if the first production unit hasn't even left the assembly line yet. It's like the Tesla Model 3 was a few months ago. Lol


Seriously?! I guess I had thought they had a completed working product when I plopped my money down. Thanks for the info.

New (and first) theater has been done almost 2 months. It has been torture waiting for a screen to watch the first movie. 

Chad


----------



## weboperations

cshuff said:


> weboperations said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spoke to him personally at CES two days ago and he basically said they are building one for a certain review site. I asked why there wasn't much info released on it and he specifically said "because we are still building it". As if the first production unit hasn't even left the assembly line yet. It's like the Tesla Model 3 was a few months ago. Lol
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?! I guess I had thought they had a completed working product when I plopped my money down. Thanks for the info.
> 
> New (and first) theater has been done almost 2 months. It has been torture waiting for a screen to watch the first movie.
> 
> Chad
Click to expand...

I guess I could've totally misunderstood him, but it seemed pretty obvious that they don't have product on the shelf, and they are still building double O, one (001), maybe 002 if you consider the CEDIA display.


----------



## Craig Peer

I spent a fair amount of time hanging out with Chris at CES on Tuesday. He had a 130" wide 2.37:1 AV Black 1.2 gain screen, which even with lots of light in the room, looked outstanding with the Wolf 4K laser projector ! These are all moving images !


----------



## chriscmore

cshuff said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> Are you guys having production issues with the Proscenium screens? Haven't heard much since my Nov 18th order.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chad


Hi Chad -

Jesse says he'll have your screen finished to ship Wednesday the 17th. As always, you can ping the guys for updates.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

weboperations said:


> I guess I could've totally misunderstood him, but it seemed pretty obvious that they don't have product on the shelf, and they are still building double O, one (001), maybe 002 if you consider the CEDIA display.


I've never had product on the shelf. A bespoke company builds to specification, not inventory.

Chris


----------



## Purenv

chriscmore said:


> I've never had product on the shelf. A bespoke company builds to specification, not inventory.
> 
> 
> 
> Chris




I’m interested in one of your AT F120 2.35 aspect Center Stage UF or XD screens, and was wondering which one is best for my room? The dedicated theater room is completely light controlled. One row of 4 seats, eyes to screen is 10’. Room dimensions are 19’L(not including false wall) x 15’W x 7’4”H. There’s a false wall 22” deep to hang the fixed screen onto. Projector is a Epson 10500. 

Thank you for your time and dedication to this community. 

Best regards, 
Nathan 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cshuff

chriscmore said:


> Hi Chad -
> 
> Jesse says he'll have your screen finished to ship Wednesday the 17th. As always, you can ping the guys for updates.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Awesome! Thanks!

Chad


----------



## chriscmore

Purenv said:


> I’m interested in one of your AT F120 2.35 aspect Center Stage UF or XD screens, and was wondering which one is best for my room? The dedicated theater room is completely light controlled. One row of 4 seats, eyes to screen is 10’. Room dimensions are 19’L(not including false wall) x 15’W x 7’4”H. There’s a false wall 22” deep to hang the fixed screen onto. Projector is a Epson 10500.
> 
> Thank you for your time and dedication to this community.
> 
> Best regards,
> Nathan


Hi Nathan -

Definitely the UF material, as this (relatively smaller screens and closer viewing) is exactly what it was designed for. If you need, Jon can send you samples to evaluate but I can recommend the UF for you without reservations.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Purenv

chriscmore said:


> Hi Nathan -
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely the UF material, as this (relatively smaller screens and closer viewing) is exactly what it was designed for. If you need, Jon can send you samples to evaluate but I can recommend the UF for you without reservations.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Thank you so much. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shermstead

Purenv said:


> Thank you so much.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is the Ambient-Visionaire (ALR) Screen available in an electric screen?


----------



## chriscmore

Shermstead said:


> Is the Ambient-Visionaire (ALR) Screen available in an electric screen?


I'm working on it. If all goes well I may have something in a couple weeks.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## coolgeek

I am just thinking out loud... Since projectors are getting brighter everyday, especially with laser light source nowadays, people actually have light to spare.. so, have you guys thought of making a AT screen using the 'black diamond' type material? Projectors still suffer from high 'black floors', and i believe a black material would bring the black floor down to almost pure black... i find that watching any content where the black is truly black will give the impression of a 3D feel to the movie... 

Or, is it not possible to do 'weave' type screens with that sort of materials?


----------



## chriscmore

coolgeek said:


> I am just thinking out loud... Since projectors are getting brighter everyday, especially with laser light source nowadays, people actually have light to spare.. so, have you guys thought of making a AT screen using the 'black diamond' type material? Projectors still suffer from high 'black floors', and i believe a black material would bring the black floor down to almost pure black... i find that watching any content where the black is truly black will give the impression of a 3D feel to the movie...
> 
> Or, is it not possible to do 'weave' type screens with that sort of materials?


Woven materials can't do specialty coatings, but I do have a microperfed version of our Ambient-Visionaire Black 1.2 and the Matinee Black. It's the same hole size/density as Stewart and SI use, but we've altered the hole pattern to improve resistance to moire. I haven't yet figured out the cost adder on that option.

I think the future is low-gain gray screens when people have 10k lumens at their disposal. Being Lambertian they don't have any of the oddities that ALR screens have and offer an easier-to-live with minor reduction of room splash contamination.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## klimo

coolgeek said:


> I am just thinking out loud... Since projectors are getting brighter everyday, especially with laser light source nowadays, people actually have light to spare.. so, have you guys thought of making a AT screen using the 'black diamond' type material? Projectors still suffer from high 'black floors', and i believe a black material would bring the black floor down to almost pure black... i find that watching any content where the black is truly black will give the impression of a 3D feel to the movie...
> 
> Or, is it not possible to do 'weave' type screens with that sort of materials?


I'd disagree completely. A 5k lumen 4k projector is, what, $60k? A calibrated HDR projector with advertised 2k - 2500k lumens on a 130in 1.0 gain screen from 15ft will be, what, 1500 lumens at best. 

It's nice to see some laser sourced projectors coming out of the woodwork, but they are far from high output. When a Sony 5000 is $5k then we can talk about having light to spare.


----------



## coolgeek

chriscmore said:


> Woven materials can't do specialty coatings, but I do have a microperfed version of our Ambient-Visionaire Black 1.2 and the Matinee Black. It's the same hole size/density as Stewart and SI use, but we've altered the hole pattern to improve resistance to moire. I haven't yet figured out the cost adder on that option.
> 
> I think the future is low-gain gray screens when people have 10k lumens at their disposal. Being Lambertian they don't have any of the oddities that ALR screens have and offer an easier-to-live with minor reduction of room splash contamination.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Problem with microperfed, they are still very visible...


----------



## klimo

chriscmore said:


> Woven materials can't do specialty coatings, but I do have a microperfed version of our Ambient-Visionaire Black 1.2 and the Matinee Black. It's the same hole size/density as Stewart and SI use, but we've altered the hole pattern to improve resistance to moire. I haven't yet figured out the cost adder on that option.
> 
> I think the future is low-gain gray screens when people have 10k lumens at their disposal. Being Lambertian they don't have any of the oddities that ALR screens have and offer an easier-to-live with minor reduction of room splash contamination.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Do you think when 10k lumen projectors are available at an affordable price, LED walls and the like will have taken large portion of projector sales and screens away?


----------



## nathan_h

klimo said:


> I'd disagree completely. A 5k lumen 4k projector is, what, $60k? A calibrated HDR projector with advertised 2k - 2500k lumens on a 130in 1.0 gain screen from 15ft will be, what, 1500 lumens at best.
> 
> It's nice to see some laser sourced projectors coming out of the woodwork, but they are far from high output. When a Sony 5000 is $5k then we can talk about having light to spare.


Agreed. With HDR, we have no output to spare, even if projectors can get two or three times as bright. Just to reach Dolby Cinema output of 108 nits is tough right now, on a normal size acoustically transparent screen.


----------



## coolgeek

klimo said:


> I'd disagree completely. A 5k lumen 4k projector is, what, $60k? A calibrated HDR projector with advertised 2k - 2500k lumens on a 130in 1.0 gain screen from 15ft will be, what, 1500 lumens at best.
> 
> It's nice to see some laser sourced projectors coming out of the woodwork, but they are far from high output. When a Sony 5000 is $5k then we can talk about having light to spare.


Laser light source is just becoming the fad now... if you look at the technology production S-Curve you'll see that things happens fast.. Sony came out with the 1000es only a few years back, and that set you back 25K, fast forward 2-3 years, and now you have 4K projectors at $5k range... I remembered just a few years back when the first 4K consumer projector came out at $25k (the Sony 1000ES), i said within a few years it'll be $5k, and EVERYONE on the FORUM jumped on me, saying that high quality lens are what cost so much for 4K and they'll NEVER, EVER come down in price... again, people who don't understand the S-Curve will ALWAYS be wrong... Now you have a LASER, 4K Sony 885ES for $25K US pricing, and the 285ES (sharing the exact same lens) for a mere $4k street.. (so, for those ppl who claimed the LENS is the expensive component, please explain the price delta when both projectors uses the exact same lens?)

This will be the same with lasers... right now, it's all about pricing strategy... you set far higher prices for more lumens.. as competition heats up, somebody's gonna give out high lumens for lower prices, and so on and so forth.. 

The ONLY factor that is preventing 4K projectors from going dirt cheap is the complexity of producing 4K chips be it LYCOS like the Sony, DiLA the JVC, etc is because there are no 3rd party chips that other projector manufacturers can buy off the shelf and use... they are all basically currently using TI's DLP chipsets... and you can find those projectors now for a few hundred bucks.. 

You wait a few more years and see how fast Lasers take over the projector world.. lamp will be dead soon... 

Of course, soon after that, i'll be video walls (the ultimate in visuals)... Video walls will also get real cheap real fast... projectors are indeed coming to the end of their life cycles... (10 years max)


----------



## coolgeek

klimo said:


> Do you think when 10k lumen projectors are available at an affordable price, LED walls and the like will have taken large portion of projector sales and screens away?


YES... I believe so, because since the demand for 10K lumens projectors at home isn't high, they'll prob keep pricing of those models high.. unless, competition heats up with lasers... but video walls are only 5 years away (affordable pricing)


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

IIRC, the Sony 1000 had an all glass lens. The subsequent cheaper models had a lens with a single plastic element to bring the lens and overall cost down. The current new models including the laser 760 all have the same lens - it may be a different lens to the earlier models, but I don't believe it's all glass. The 5000 _does_ have an all glass lens however. That would explain the cost differences.


----------



## coolgeek

Gary Lightfoot said:


> IIRC, the Sony 1000 had an all glass lens. The subsequent cheaper models had a lens with a single plastic element to bring the lens and overall cost down. The current new models including the laser 760 all have the same lens - it may be a different lens to the earlier models, but I don't believe it's all glass. The 5000 _does_ have an all glass lens however. That would explain the cost differences.


And YET, 4K projectors are now around 4K street... that was the argument... that 4K projectors will be cheap... (lens isn't the issue, but some thought it was).


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

coolgeek said:


> And YET, 4K projectors are now around 4K street... that was the argument... that 4K projectors will be cheap... (lens isn't the issue, but some thought it was).


Things do get cheaper over time - same thing happened with 720 and 1080, but in this case the lens cost makes a big difference too. If the lens wasn't a cost issue, it would be all glass in all models, but it isn't.


----------



## coolgeek

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Things do get cheaper over time - same thing happened with 720 and 1080, but in this case the lens cost makes a big difference too. If the lens wasn't a cost issue, it would be all glass in all models, but it isn't.


Of course it makes a difference... But they weren't the deciding factor in why 4K projectors couldn't be cheap... you prob forgot the argument a few years back when I stated that 4K projectors were going to be at the 4K price within 3 years or so... but ppl threw in the idea that 4K projectors requires very specialized lens that made it impossible for them to get to that kind of price point... and i said, all technology goes down in price.. and new tech will ensure that... and sure enough here it is.. the prove is in the pudding.. unless someone is stubborn enough to claim that all of these new 4K projectors cannot be considered 4K... lolz... 

Also, separately I also believe the entire 'lens in the 1000es is thousands of dollars' is ridiculous.. i bet the manufacturing cost of those lens aren't even a couple hundred dollars... it's all about product differentiatiation... you provide an incremental improvement but you charge the sky for those willing to pay for it... all these specialty products have retail prices 100% or even 1000% of over their manufacturing costs... btw: those JVC faux 4K projectors have superior all glass lens and they are selling those projectors from 3K - 10K... same lens, different pricing..


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

coolgeek said:


> Of course it makes a difference... But they weren't the deciding factor in why 4K projectors couldn't be cheap... you prob forgot the argument a few years back when I stated that 4K projectors were going to be at the 4K price within 3 years or so... but ppl threw in the idea that 4K projectors requires very specialized lens that made it impossible for them to get to that kind of price point... and i said, all technology goes down in price.. and new tech will ensure that... and sure enough here it is.. the prove is in the pudding.. unless someone is stubborn enough to claim that all of these new 4K projectors cannot be considered 4K... lolz...


Everything comes down in price and you're not the only one to say that about 4k. I've lost count how many people here have said that, each with different guesses as to when (some said two years, some said three, some said five...)

If we get 8k, the cost of 4k will drop further, in the same way that 720 dropped when 1080 came out, and now even 1080 is cheap. It's not rocket science, but good optics are expensive - look at the cost of Anamorphic lenses for example. If you look at the quality of the plastic element lens vs the all glass lens you can see the difference because of the MTF factor IIRC, and that comes at a cost. 



coolgeek said:


> Also, separately I also believe the entire 'lens in the 1000es is thousands of dollars' is ridiculous.. i bet the manufacturing cost of those lens aren't even a couple hundred dollars...


I think you'd be wrong about that.



coolgeek said:


> it's all about product differentiatiation... you provide an incremental improvement but you charge the sky for those willing to pay for it... all these specialty products have retail prices 100% or even 1000% of over their manufacturing costs... btw: those JVC faux 4K projectors have superior all glass lens and they are selling those projectors from 3K - 10K... same lens, different pricing..


Of course there is that, but to reduce the cost of the 4K Sony's they reduced the cost of the lens by replacing the largest element (IIRC) with plastic. 

Over time of course production costs drop once the initial R&D and tooling has been paid for, and technology moves on.


----------



## klimo

coolgeek said:


> Laser light source is just becoming the fad now... if you look at the technology production S-Curve you'll see that things happens fast.. Sony came out with the 1000es only a few years back, and that set you back 25K, fast forward 2-3 years, and now you have 4K projectors at $5k range... I remembered just a few years back when the first 4K consumer projector came out at $25k (the Sony 1000ES), i said within a few years it'll be $5k, and EVERYONE on the FORUM jumped on me, saying that high quality lens are what cost so much for 4K and they'll NEVER, EVER come down in price... again, people who don't understand the S-Curve will ALWAYS be wrong... Now you have a LASER, 4K Sony 885ES for $25K US pricing, and the 285ES (sharing the exact same lens) for a mere $4k street.. (so, for those ppl who claimed the LENS is the expensive component, please explain the price delta when both projectors uses the exact same lens?)
> 
> This will be the same with lasers... right now, it's all about pricing strategy... you set far higher prices for more lumens.. as competition heats up, somebody's gonna give out high lumens for lower prices, and so on and so forth..
> 
> The ONLY factor that is preventing 4K projectors from going dirt cheap is the complexity of producing 4K chips be it LYCOS like the Sony, DiLA the JVC, etc is because there are no 3rd party chips that other projector manufacturers can buy off the shelf and use... they are all basically currently using TI's DLP chipsets... and you can find those projectors now for a few hundred bucks..
> 
> You wait a few more years and see how fast Lasers take over the projector world.. lamp will be dead soon...
> 
> Of course, soon after that, i'll be video walls (the ultimate in visuals)... Video walls will also get real cheap real fast... projectors are indeed coming to the end of their life cycles... (10 years max)


I don't disagree that things will continue to drop in price and at a faster rate. However, there has been zero change in high output laser 4k projectors in price so far. The 5000 is still $60k. The Sony 885 is far from high out put is still $25k. Not to mention those are all "quoted" lumen outputs, but when HDR calibrated, will drop by 30-50%. 

But yeah, within 5 years, we'll be there. And you're right LED light walls will be at the cusp as well. 

I was quoting on the comment that insinuated we were already there, when in reality we are far from it.


----------



## gregroland17

Hey guys, reading through all this and it's great stuff. I've narrowed down my screen(AT)/projector selections to a few (thanks to @Ellebob) and just trying to get pricing on the neo material.

My seating will be around 13-14 feet from the screen so if I go AT with Seymour my understanding is the XD will be the best route. 

Screen size diagonally will be around 135 give or take. I know that the two closest sizes are 131.9 and 137.7 on the seymour site.

I think I'm set on fixed frame, have a great wall for it and looking at the Premier or Metro. In speaking with Jon at Seymour these are both best for a larger screen.
Has anyone seen both of these in person? Price on the metro is 1K higher, what makes it so much better/expensive?
Should i be considering retractable? Whatever I choose I want to make sure I can add a masking system potentially down the road.

As for the Neo material, my understanding is there's only one type in the US? When I look on the site there is a neoS, neoW and neo4K.
I have a call into a local guy based on the seymour screen excellence site but haven't heard back yet.
Assuming there are some different frame options for the neo material as well. Is the price that much more expensive on the neo material?
I've heard great things about it as well.

Projectors I'm down to (I think, lol) are the Sony 285 (considering 385 for lens memory), Epson 6040 and JVC RS540.

All in all, I'm looking to put together the best combo for under 10K and make sure I choose the right projector to fill up that screen with my throw distance.
Mounting has to be around 15 feet from what I've calculated. Based on my viewing distance should I be considering a smaller/larger screen?

I think I attached a picture to hopefully help with layout as well...
I will be moving my seats up slightly from what's in the picture, will help more with acoustics.

I'm pretty new to all of this, head is spinning, a lot out there!

Thanks guys.


----------



## DavidK442

gregroland17 said:


> Hey guys, reading through all this and it's great stuff. I've narrowed down my screen(AT)/projector selections to a few (thanks to @Ellebob) and just trying to get pricing on the neo material.
> 
> My seating will be around 13-14 feet from the screen so if I go AT with Seymour my understanding is the XD will be the best route.
> 
> Screen size diagonally will be around 135 give or take. I know that the two closest sizes are 131.9 and 137.7 on the seymour site.
> 
> I think I'm set on fixed frame, have a great wall for it and looking at the Premier or Metro. In speaking with Jon at Seymour these are both best for a larger screen.
> Has anyone seen both of these in person? Price on the metro is 1K higher, what makes it so much better/expensive?
> Should i be considering retractable? Whatever I choose I want to make sure I can add a masking system potentially down the road.
> 
> As for the Neo material, my understanding is there's only one type in the US? When I look on the site there is a neoS, neoW and neo4K.
> I have a call into a local guy based on the seymour screen excellence site but haven't heard back yet.
> Assuming there are some different frame options for the neo material as well. Is the price that much more expensive on the neo material?
> I've heard great things about it as well.
> 
> Projectors I'm down to (I think, lol) are the Sony 285 (considering 385 for lens memory), Epson 6040 and JVC RS540.
> 
> All in all, I'm looking to put together the best combo for under 10K and make sure I choose the right projector to fill up that screen with my throw distance.
> Mounting has to be around 15 feet from what I've calculated. Based on my viewing distance should I be considering a smaller/larger screen?
> 
> I think I attached a picture to hopefully help with layout as well...
> I will be moving my seats up slightly from what's in the picture, will help more with acoustics.
> 
> I'm pretty new to all of this, head is spinning, a lot out there!
> 
> Thanks guys.


Sometimes all the information and the excitement of buying a toy with your year end bonus can have you doing this:










At your seating distance I see no reason to even look at the more expensive Neo material. XD will give you color accuracy and maximum gain and at 13 feet you will not see the weave.
A roll up screen? Why?
Which frame to get? I have never understood frame options. Either it holds the material taught and keeps a rectangular shape or it does not. If you are paying more for a frame that does exactly the same thing as a cheaper one, why? If you are serious enough to spend $10,000 on a video system then the screen should be hung on a dark colored wall and no one will notice that your expensive screen is 2 inches wider than the cheap one.


----------



## gregroland17

DavidK442 said:


> Sometimes all the information and the excitement of buying a toy with your year end bonus can have you doing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At your seating distance I see no reason to even look at the more expensive Neo material. XD will give you color accuracy and maximum gain and at 13 feet you will not see the weave.
> A roll up screen? Why?
> Which frame to get? I have never understood frame options. Either it holds the material taught and keeps a rectangular shape or it does not. If you are paying more for a frame that does exactly the same thing as a cheaper one, why? If you are serious enough to spend $10,000 on a video system then the screen should be hung on a dark colored wall and no one will notice that your expensive screen is 2 inches wider than the cheap one.


Lol, appreciate the response. I'm pretty much set on the XD with the Premier, I was just curious about what would make the metro frame so much more. The XD seems to be the clear winner for value, now I just need to settle on the projector. It's just really hard to choose when you can't see a lot of this in person...


----------



## coolgeek

gregroland17 said:


> Lol, appreciate the response. I'm pretty much set on the XD with the Premier, I was just curious about what would make the metro frame so much more. The XD seems to be the clear winner for value, now I just need to settle on the projector. It's just really hard to choose when you can't see a lot of this in person...


I have the premier 10 feet wide curved... I attached a hinge at one end so i can open it up like a door when i need to access the back... it's built solid enough... i think if i had gotten the cheaper frame, i would not be able to do this at all..


----------



## chriscmore

gregroland17 said:


> Hey guys, reading through all this and it's great stuff. I've narrowed down my screen(AT)/projector selections to a few (thanks to @Ellebob) and just trying to get pricing on the neo material.
> 
> My seating will be around 13-14 feet from the screen so if I go AT with Seymour my understanding is the XD will be the best route.
> 
> Screen size diagonally will be around 135 give or take. I know that the two closest sizes are 131.9 and 137.7 on the seymour site.
> 
> I think I'm set on fixed frame, have a great wall for it and looking at the Premier or Metro. In speaking with Jon at Seymour these are both best for a larger screen.
> Has anyone seen both of these in person? Price on the metro is 1K higher, what makes it so much better/expensive?
> Should i be considering retractable? Whatever I choose I want to make sure I can add a masking system potentially down the road.
> 
> As for the Neo material, my understanding is there's only one type in the US? When I look on the site there is a neoS, neoW and neo4K.
> I have a call into a local guy based on the seymour screen excellence site but haven't heard back yet.
> Assuming there are some different frame options for the neo material as well. Is the price that much more expensive on the neo material?
> I've heard great things about it as well.
> 
> Projectors I'm down to (I think, lol) are the Sony 285 (considering 385 for lens memory), Epson 6040 and JVC RS540.
> 
> All in all, I'm looking to put together the best combo for under 10K and make sure I choose the right projector to fill up that screen with my throw distance.
> Mounting has to be around 15 feet from what I've calculated. Based on my viewing distance should I be considering a smaller/larger screen?
> 
> I think I attached a picture to hopefully help with layout as well...
> I will be moving my seats up slightly from what's in the picture, will help more with acoustics.
> 
> I'm pretty new to all of this, head is spinning, a lot out there!
> 
> Thanks guys.


The XD would be perfect for your relatively longer viewing distance and relatively larger size. That's what the XD was designed for and why it's the number one AT screen in AVS home theaters. If you're a black-level junkie you may go to the UF, but it's also swappable later on if you'd like.

The Premier is the widest velvet border and for dedicated rooms is my favorite. It's the frame that was designed for us AVS folk who know what we want. The Premier was designed to be -30% cheaper and compete with the imported ilk and as coolgeek mentions, it's not designed for curving, panels and other assorted weirdness. 

The Metro is actually our costliest to make, since the 1.5" wide border isn't the frame. If it were, then yeah a tiny extrusion would be the cheapest. But it instead has a ~3.3"w x 1.5"d black anodized (very costly at our lengths) frame behind it doing the structural work (and holding optional bias lighting, corner brackets, posts or grip channel, etc) and the top 1.5"w velvet border is a separate removable extrusion. If I put a screen in an upstairs living room, it's sexy. If it were going downstairs where no one would see it, I'd go Premier.

On the S-SE front, we only have one Neo. The UK folks had two versions S and W (for small and wide), but the S is the only material I wanted to go with. We're having it made in nice large sizes so it will be our go-to for most applications. A Neo screen setup is about twice what you're looking at in the Seymour AV site.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## gregroland17

chriscmore said:


> The XD would be perfect for your relatively longer viewing distance and relatively larger size. That's what the XD was designed for and why it's the number one AT screen in AVS home theaters. If you're a black-level junkie you may go to the UF, but it's also swappable later on if you'd like.
> 
> The Premier is the widest velvet border and for dedicated rooms is my favorite. It's the frame that was designed for us AVS folk who know what we want. The Premier was designed to be -30% cheaper and compete with the imported ilk and as coolgeek mentions, it's not designed for curving, panels and other assorted weirdness.
> 
> The Metro is actually our costliest to make, since the 1.5" wide border isn't the frame. If it were, then yeah a tiny extrusion would be the cheapest. But it instead has a ~3.3"w x 1.5"d black anodized (very costly at our lengths) frame behind it doing the structural work (and holding optional bias lighting, corner brackets, posts or grip channel, etc) and the top 1.5"w velvet border is a separate removable extrusion. If I put a screen in an upstairs living room, it's sexy. If it were going downstairs where no one would see it, I'd go Premier.
> 
> On the S-SE front, we only have one Neo. The UK folks had two versions S and W (for small and wide), but the S is the only material I wanted to go with. We're having it made in nice large sizes so it will be our go-to for most applications. A Neo screen setup is about twice what you're looking at in the Seymour AV site.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks so much Chris, the feedback certainly helps. I'll definitely being buying a screen from you guys and do look forward to it. I just wanted to get a quote of the Neo, have a vm into Rich (I'm in upstate NY) and haven't heard back from him. I've settled on the 285 or 385 from Sony for my projector, what's the main difference between the neo and the xd with that projector? Will it make a big difference? Let me know if there's another way I can get a quote on the neo as well, just trying to get my ducks in a row. Thanks again.


----------



## chriscmore

gregroland17 said:


> Thanks so much Chris, the feedback certainly helps. I'll definitely being buying a screen from you guys and do look forward to it. I just wanted to get a quote of the Neo, have a vm into Rich (I'm in upstate NY) and haven't heard back from him. I've settled on the 285 or 385 from Sony for my projector, what's the main difference between the neo and the xd with that projector? Will it make a big difference? Let me know if there's another way I can get a quote on the neo as well, just trying to get my ducks in a row. Thanks again.


The couple types to think about it are the (relatively) high gain / further viewing / pvc coated option (XD), or the lower gain / closer viewing / uncoated options (UF or Neo). The Neo is like we took the UF and shrunk everything down 50%.

At your relatively longer viewing distance and larger size, the XD has no peer. If you were sitting closer with a smaller screen, then the UF or Neo would be the options to consider. As to a decision between those two, then factors to consider are cost, uniformity (grip channel is perfect; easy grommets can show), fineness (how extreme are you pushing the smoothness), and AT (Neo is about 0.7dB more AT than UF).

If you want to evaluate some samples, contact us and we can send them.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## gregroland17

chriscmore said:


> gregroland17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks so much Chris, the feedback certainly helps. I'll definitely being buying a screen from you guys and do look forward to it. I just wanted to get a quote of the Neo, have a vm into Rich (I'm in upstate NY) and haven't heard back from him. I've settled on the 285 or 385 from Sony for my projector, what's the main difference between the neo and the xd with that projector? Will it make a big difference? Let me know if there's another way I can get a quote on the neo as well, just trying to get my ducks in a row. Thanks again.
> 
> 
> 
> The couple types to think about it are the (relatively) high gain / further viewing / pvc coated option (XD), or the lower gain / closer viewing / uncoated options (UF or Neo). The Neo is like we took the UF and shrunk everything down 50%.
> 
> At your relatively longer viewing distance and larger size, the XD has no peer. If you were sitting closer with a smaller screen, then the UF or Neo would be the options to consider. As to a decision between those two, then factors to consider are cost, uniformity (grip channel is perfect; easy grommets can show), fineness (how extreme are you pushing the smoothness), and AT (Neo is about 0.7dB more AT than UF).
> 
> If you want to evaluate some samples, contact us and we can send them.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
Click to expand...


I trust you, you know this stuff much better than I do and all the feedback I?ve read on the XD is so positive. Just want to make sure I?m comfortable with my purchase. The masking system can be added at any time right? Thanks again for your help.


----------



## chriscmore

gregroland17 said:


> I trust you, you know this stuff much better than I do and all the feedback I?ve read on the XD is so positive. Just want to make sure I?m comfortable with my purchase. The masking system can be added at any time right? Thanks again for your help.


If you're referring to the magnetic masking panels, yes, you can add those later. It's easier if you have us preinstall magnets for you (refundable adder), or you can install them yourself later when you get panels.

If you're referring to the motorized Proscenium screen, no, it's not an add-on system but rather an integrated screen and mechanical system.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## nathan_h

chriscmore said:


> If you're referring to the magnetic masking panels, yes, you can add those later. It's easier if you have us preinstall magnets for you (refundable adder), or you can install them yourself later when you get panels.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I’ve got a EN4k screen from you guys that didn’t have magnets when built. Can I add the magnets to it as well?


----------



## chriscmore

nathan_h said:


> I’ve got a EN4k screen from you guys that didn’t have magnets when built. Can I add the magnets to it as well?


If it was our Series-3 frame, then yes. You'd take the screen down, remove the material and then razor-notch the back lip of velvet and stick on the magnets where we instruct.

If it was our Reference frame, then no. It doesn't use magnets in the frame. We instead machine slots and add steel for the panel magnets to attract to. This is done prior to covering in velvet, so adding panel capability in those is much more involved.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## nathan_h

Ah, this screen is probably the Reference Frame since it is from about 4 years ago.


----------



## cshuff

Just got my new Proscenium 2:40 140w screen installed tonight. It is a beauty. Props to Chris, Jon, and Dan at Seymour. This is my first screen/theater....I am super impressed! A very well built product. Works perfect! Love not having to deal with magnet masking panels. Special thanks to Dan who promptly answered my setup questions this week....thanks Dan!

Chad


----------



## mraub

*Versus Original Seymour Woven AT Screen Material*

My current DIY AT screen uses what I think was the original Seymour woven AT screen material. I tried to find the receipt to check date of purchase and the name (if any) Seymour gave the material, but I can't find it. If I recall correctly, Seymour was a pioneer in using woven fabric for AT screens, since many did not like the perforated vinyl, which was the common AT material before woven came into use.

I've got to take the fabric down soon to install new speakers and wonder if I should upgrade the screen at the same time. Anyone have a guess as to how much improvement I'm likely to perceive if I change the original screen material to AV center stage? 

When I installed the current screen I was using an anamorphic lens and had the builder build me a curved frame to deal with some of the optical anomalies created by the anamorphic lens. I have since upgraded to a JVC projector with lens memory and no longer use the A lens. If I change screens I will likely go with a flat screen, since the projector lens was designed to project on a flat field. I can get OK focus on the curved screen, but I think it will be sharper on a flat screen.

Any thoughts?


----------



## chriscmore

cshuff said:


> Just got my new Proscenium 2:40 140w screen installed tonight. It is a beauty. Props to Chris, Jon, and Dan at Seymour. This is my first screen/theater....I am super impressed! A very well built product. Works perfect! Love not having to deal with magnet masking panels. Special thanks to Dan who promptly answered my setup questions this week....thanks Dan!
> 
> Chad


Great to hear, Chad! If you have any pretty pictures you'd like to share, perhaps I could add them to the website, too.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

mraub said:


> My current DIY AT screen uses what I think was the original Seymour woven AT screen material. I tried to find the receipt to check date of purchase and the name (if any) Seymour gave the material, but I can't find it. If I recall correctly, Seymour was a pioneer in using woven fabric for AT screens, since many did not like the perforated vinyl, which was the common AT material before woven came into use.
> 
> I've got to take the fabric down soon to install new speakers and wonder if I should upgrade the screen at the same time. Anyone have a guess as to how much improvement I'm likely to perceive if I change the original screen material to AV center stage?
> 
> When I installed the current screen I was using an anamorphic lens and had the builder build me a curved frame to deal with some of the optical anomalies created by the anamorphic lens. I have since upgraded to a JVC projector with lens memory and no longer use the A lens. If I change screens I will likely go with a flat screen, since the projector lens was designed to project on a flat field. I can get OK focus on the curved screen, but I think it will be sharper on a flat screen.
> 
> Any thoughts?


What is your seating distance? That may determine if going to the UF or XD would be an upgrade path for you.

On the flat versus curved, if you kept your bend radius rather large, and can install the projector further back, you may be ok with staying curved. They certainly look cool, but as mentioned you wouldn't have any technical reason to do so. If you're toward the closer end of the mounting range then that votes for sticking to a flat screen.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## mraub

Thanks, Chris. First seats are about 13' from the screen so XD is probably what I need. What's the biggest difference between the current XD and the first AT material you sold, which I don't think even had a formal name way back when. I've been happy with the original material, for the most part. You were able to stich Velcro around the perimeter of the material (don't know if you still offer that) and that's how it's held in the frame. I tend to get some ripples in the lower corners in winter, when the basement is very dry, but they go away in the humid summers. That seems counterintuitive, but that's what I see. The ripples don't seem to be visible on projected material, but they do irritate the perfectionist in me. 


I haven't got much flexibility in projector placement. I'm leaning toward the Premier frame in 120" 2.35 aspect ratio. If I read the website correctly, this will have to be shipped via truck, but that shipping is free in the continental US. Getting something 10' long down to my basement could be a problem, but if all else fails I can remove a small awning window in the basement and slide it through there. Bit of a hassle, but I have done it before.


If I decide on the 2.35 to 1.78 masking panels, and I am leaning that way, do I need to order them with the screen or can they be ordered later?




chriscmore said:


> What is your seating distance? That may determine if going to the UF or XD would be an upgrade path for you.


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Mike -

We don't do the Velcro option anymore because it can't hold tension. We occasionally attach it to stretchy, unsupported vinyl surfaces, but most of our materials need the stretch to be in the attachment point.

The XD came out with an arguably finer texture for closer viewing, a ~3-4% higher gain, and a +0.5dB more AT. It's an evolutionary improvement.

If you don't want the panels upon ordering, I'd recommend you have us pre-install the magnets for you (+$75, refundable) so that if you get them later you simply hang them and don't have to perform minor surgery to the backside of the frame. It's still possible to do afterwards if you don't want the preinstalled option.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## doubleH

I am considering a Seymour screen and Jon has been great answering my questions. One thing he cannot answer is what the duty and other fees would be to import a screen into Canada. Can any Canucks share their experiences with this?

Thanks
hh


----------



## Tedd

I doubt there'll be duty, but they will hammer you with brokerage fees and shipping to Canada can get pricey. You also will get to pay the 
HST on the converted Canadian dollar value. 

I am an hour drive to the Queenstown NY border, and there's a postal receiving service the first turn off the hiway. Now if there's 
something local to you, and you have a vehicle capable of carrying the box, then maybe that's an option for you. I pretty much just 
end paying the GST on my parcels, converted to Canadian dollars which I import myself. Shipping within the US is rather reasonable.


----------



## doubleH

Tedd said:


> I doubt there'll be duty, but they will hammer you with brokerage fees and shipping to Canada can get pricey. You also will get to pay the
> HST on the converted Canadian dollar value.
> 
> I am an hour drive to the Queenstown NY border, and there's a postal receiving service the first turn off the hiway. Now if there's
> something local to you, and you have a vehicle capable of carrying the box, then maybe that's an option for you. I pretty much just
> end paying the GST on my parcels, converted to Canadian dollars which I import myself. Shipping within the US is rather reasonable.


Thank you for the reply Tedd. We are in the same area as I am about 1.5hrs from that border crossing. Could you share with me the name of the postal receiving company in the US? What exactly do you mean when you say "import yourself"? Is there paperwork you have to fill out ahead of time, or is it as simple as going to pickup a parcel, cross the border, and pay the GST? Have you imported a Seymour screen?

hh


----------



## Tedd

No paperwork, other then a proper receipt, just declare it at the booth upon re-entry. (You do need a passport.) 

US Address 
3909 Witmer Road
Niagara Falls, NY 14305-1239

Tel: 716 298-1822
Fax: 716 298-5502

[email protected]

www.usaddressinc.com

You do need to pre-register. 

I'd expect a parcel as such , would be $10 to receive for you. (Based on 9' long 100 pound masking system I imported.)

I have not brought in a screen, just material.


----------



## Tedd

You do need photo id, to get your parcel also. A driver license is fine.


----------



## doubleH

Tedd said:


> No paperwork, other then a proper receipt, just declare it at the booth upon re-entry. (You do need a passport.)
> 
> US Address
> 3909 Witmer Road
> Niagara Falls, NY 14305-1239
> 
> Tel: 716 298-1822
> Fax: 716 298-5502
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> www.usaddressinc.com
> 
> You do need to pre-register.
> 
> I'd expect a parcel as such , would be $10 to receive for you. (Based on 9' long 100 pound masking system I imported.)
> 
> I have not brought in a screen, just material.


Thanks Tedd!


----------



## chriscmore

I'm glad that AVS has restarted their Home Theater of the Month. This month's winner, Great Dane Cinema, is a fantastic example of what can be achieved by those that are self-reliant and seek out best practices. By following those, and all of his DIY work, this room will outperform CEDIA installations costing 10x as much. Kudos!

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ter-month-great-dane-cinema.html#post55774076

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## elvinps2626

Hello everyone 

I while soon be joining the SeymourAv Family. I will like to thank Jon Kaisand from SeymourAv on answering the many questions and doubts i had. I Will be getting the Proscenium Masking Frame 2.40 scope ratio on 120 in screen wide AT. Are there any videos or pictures of members in here that have that screen? couldn't find any, will love to see a video of it. What i don't know is what material to get. It will be either the Center Stage XD or the Center Stage UF. Will only have my center channel behind the screen. My Room is 22.9 feet long X 16 ft wide x 9 feet tall. So to get the immersion feeling out of movies my first row will have to be at 2.4 X 50= 10 ft from what I've read on the various post. From the distance what Material should i get.


PS: Will mostly be watching 1080p movies or 4k HDR movies, my projector will be the Epson Pro Cinema LS10500 it is Faux-4k.

Thank You,
Elvin


----------



## Jive821

*Advice*



chriscmore said:


> The XD would be perfect for your relatively longer viewing distance and relatively larger size. That's what the XD was designed for and why it's the number one AT screen in AVS home theaters. If you're a black-level junkie you may go to the UF, but it's also swappable later on if you'd like.
> 
> The Premier is the widest velvet border and for dedicated rooms is my favorite. It's the frame that was designed for us AVS folk who know what we want. The Premier was designed to be -30% cheaper and compete with the imported ilk and as coolgeek mentions, it's not designed for curving, panels and other assorted weirdness.
> 
> The Metro is actually our costliest to make, since the 1.5" wide border isn't the frame. If it were, then yeah a tiny extrusion would be the cheapest. But it instead has a ~3.3"w x 1.5"d black anodized (very costly at our lengths) frame behind it doing the structural work (and holding optional bias lighting, corner brackets, posts or grip channel, etc) and the top 1.5"w velvet border is a separate removable extrusion. If I put a screen in an upstairs living room, it's sexy. If it were going downstairs where no one would see it, I'd go Premier.
> 
> On the S-SE front, we only have one Neo. The UK folks had two versions S and W (for small and wide), but the S is the only material I wanted to go with. We're having it made in nice large sizes so it will be our go-to for most applications. A Neo screen setup is about twice what you're looking at in the Seymour AV site.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris





Chris
Could I ask your advice. I have a dedicated home theater: currently with a 106" 16:9 Clarion screen with a 1080p Mitsubishi projector showing 99% apple TV/Blu-ray movies. The seating distance is about 10 feet. The front projector throw is about 15 feet. The R,LC speakers are in wall just to the right left and below the screen. I am upgrading the projector to a Sony VW385ES true 4K. I am looking into possibly increasing the size of the screen. Any increase in the size would cover the speakers. The room has no natural light. Can you make any recs on this info?


Thanks


----------



## chriscmore

elvinps2626 said:


> Hello everyone
> 
> I while soon be joining the SeymourAv Family. I will like to thank Jon Kaisand from SeymourAv on answering the many questions and doubts i had. I Will be getting the Proscenium Masking Frame 2.40 scope ratio on 120 in screen wide AT. Are there any videos or pictures of members in here that have that screen? couldn't find any, will love to see a video of it. What i don't know is what material to get. It will be either the Center Stage XD or the Center Stage UF. Will only have my center channel behind the screen. My Room is 22.9 feet long X 16 ft wide x 9 feet tall. So to get the immersion feeling out of movies my first row will have to be at 2.4 X 50= 10 ft from what I've read on the various post. From the distance what Material should i get.
> 
> 
> PS: Will mostly be watching 1080p movies or 4k HDR movies, my projector will be the Epson Pro Cinema LS10500 it is Faux-4k.
> 
> Thank You,
> Elvin


I'd go with the UF material for that viewing distance for sure. The future is lower gain screens anyway and their inherent performance benefits, but its smoothness is important for that close.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Jive821 said:


> Chris
> Could I ask your advice. I have a dedicated home theater: currently with a 106" 16:9 Clarion screen with a 1080p Mitsubishi projector showing 99% apple TV/Blu-ray movies. The seating distance is about 10 feet. The front projector throw is about 15 feet. The R,LC speakers are in wall just to the right left and below the screen. I am upgrading the projector to a Sony VW385ES true 4K. I am looking into possibly increasing the size of the screen. Any increase in the size would cover the speakers. The room has no natural light. Can you make any recs on this info?
> 
> 
> Thanks


At ten feet back you're around guidelines for your current size. For a step change I'd recommend going just large enough to cover the speakers, which I'd guess would be about 105"w (120.5"d). The 385 can safely zoom out to fill it up from 15', so you're good there. The Center Stage UF material is the way to go.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## elvinps2626

chriscmore said:


> I'd go with the UF material for that viewing distance for sure. The future is lower gain screens anyway and their inherent performance benefits, but its smoothness is important for that close.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris 
I will order with the UF material. When i have everything installed i will post pictures and a video of the masking so anyone that want to see how it works can see it.


----------



## Jive821

chriscmore said:


> At ten feet back you're around guidelines for your current size. For a step change I'd recommend going just large enough to cover the speakers, which I'd guess would be about 105"w (120.5"d). The 385 can safely zoom out to fill it up from 15', so you're good there. The Center Stage UF material is the way to go.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris



Chris

Thanks for the advice. UF vs XD? I have 2 rows of seating. 1st row is 10-11feet, second row is 16-17 feet. Do you still recommend UF? 
Do you typically recommend the black backing?


----------



## pwlong

chriscmore said:


> I'm glad that AVS has restarted their Home Theater of the Month. This month's winner, Great Dane Cinema, is a fantastic example of what can be achieved by those that are self-reliant and seek out best practices. By following those, and all of his DIY work, this room will outperform CEDIA installations costing 10x as much. Kudos!
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ter-month-great-dane-cinema.html#post55774076
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Super cool setup. Really impressive to see how the AT screen turned out. Nice job!


----------



## chriscmore

Check out this theater we put a Center Stage XD screen (Premier frame with magnetic masking panels) into. The CEPro article is here https://www.cepro.com/article/super_fan_game_of_thrones_themed_home_theater/

Secrets in the room: lift a skeleton key to open the equipment rack door. Knock three times on the map-coffee table to reveal the gaming consoles. The dragon's eyes are lit by pin lights from the projector enclosure. Ridiculously cool.


















































































Cheers,
Chris


----------



## bkeeler10

^^ Wow! That's something else right there. Must've cost a fortune, but leaves quite a visual impression.


----------



## nathan_h

Impressive theme but I'm a little aghast:

1. the best seat in the house is in the aisle? in fact, all the good seats are in a walkway
2. the screen is so small relative to the viewing positions that actual movie viewing seems like an afterthought
3. in short he bought an awesome projector, piled on quality gear including an excellent screen, and then created a room that is suboptimal with regard to seeing it perform

I mean, it's a choice, and he is free to do it -- but it feels like buying a race-track-ready Porsche and using it only to commute in bumper to bumper traffic.


----------



## Draden1

I can't help but think what if the owner really hates how Game of Thrones ends which in turn makes dislike the show as a whole? And now he's stuck with this room....LOL!


----------



## skypop

Draden1 said:


> I can't help but think what if the owner really hates how Game of Thrones ends which in turn makes dislike the show as a whole? And now he's stuck with this room....LOL!




Just change the room,I've rearranged my room twice in the last 4 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Draden1

skypop said:


> Just change the room,I've rearranged my room twice in the last 4 years.


Seems simple enough, why not just change it?


----------



## skypop

Draden1 said:


> Seems simple enough, why not just change it?




My wife changes the First floor of our house around every spring and fall,I don't care that's her hobby,mine is the theater room lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

nathan_h said:


> Impressive theme but I'm a little aghast:
> 
> 1. the best seat in the house is in the aisle? in fact, all the good seats are in a walkway
> 2. the screen is so small relative to the viewing positions that actual movie viewing seems like an afterthought
> 3. in short he bought an awesome projector, piled on quality gear including an excellent screen, and then created a room that is suboptimal with regard to seeing it perform
> 
> I mean, it's a choice, and he is free to do it -- but it feels like buying a race-track-ready Porsche and using it only to commute in bumper to bumper traffic.


All good points. I would have done rows of three because I'd have to have the center seat.

The screen is actually at guidelines for scope in the front row (which, ironically GoT is not in scope). The fisheye lens used to take the pictures makes the screen look smaller than it really is. Jacob at Visual Concepts is very good at utilizing the massive inherent benefit of AT screens: bigger image, better acoustics.

It's a pricey room for sure, but they actually did keep an eye on maximizing value, which is why they chose a Seymour AV screen with magnetic masking panels. I think the laser-phosphor UHD projector from Wolf is "only" $10k. I don't know the budget exactly but it's not a new track-ready Porsche. I'd guess about a new base 911.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Draden1 said:


> I can't help but think what if the owner really hates how Game of Thrones ends which in turn makes dislike the show as a whole? And now he's stuck with this room....LOL!


I've thought this too, as even the most-favorite franchises (e.g. Star Wars) might become tiresome after a while. I'd recommend sticking to the forever-franchises such as Star Wars, because in 100 years from now they'll still be pumping out new ones. Unlike Transformers, if there is any good left in the universe. Pirates of the Caribbean, anyone?

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## klimo

nathan_h said:


> Impressive theme but I'm a little aghast:
> 
> 1. the best seat in the house is in the aisle? in fact, all the good seats are in a walkway
> 2. the screen is so small relative to the viewing positions that actual movie viewing seems like an afterthought
> 3. in short he bought an awesome projector, piled on quality gear including an excellent screen, and then created a room that is suboptimal with regard to seeing it perform
> 
> I mean, it's a choice, and he is free to do it -- but it feels like buying a race-track-ready Porsche and using it only to commute in bumper to bumper traffic.


It's almost like form was a priority over function for this family. They still wanted some of the better products to get the most out of the room. Only people on avsforum would be agahst. anyone who walks in will be wowed and amazed.


----------



## nathan_h

chriscmore said:


> All good points. I would have done rows of three because I'd have to have the center seat.
> 
> The screen is actually at guidelines for scope in the front row (which, ironically GoT is not in scope). The fisheye lens used to take the pictures makes the screen look smaller than it really is. Jacob at Visual Concepts is very good at utilizing the massive inherent benefit of AT screens: bigger image, better acoustics.
> 
> It's a pricey room for sure, but they actually did keep an eye on maximizing value, which is why they chose a Seymour AV screen with magnetic masking panels. I think the laser-phosphor UHD projector from Wolf is "only" $10k. I don't know the budget exactly but it's not a new track-ready Porsche. I'd guess about a new base 911.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Glad to hear the screen is larger than it looks! I have a prejudice in that space, where I want my scope screen to be only slight wider than my seating distance from it. So that, and seating position, really freaked me out. (I sit 9 feet from an 8 foot wide 2.37:1 EN4K screen.)

I am sure they love their theater and love showing it off and have no regrets. I just shudder when I think about the particular choices this client made. (I have no doubt the AV crew likely knew their stuff -- and possibly recommended a few things to make it more AV optimal that the client turned down.)


----------



## DavidK442

Hi chris.
Years ago I received a sample of your XD material with the hope of using it in my small theater.
Unfortunately my viewing distance is just too close for the weave structure.
I have been following along on this thread ever since, hoping for a Centerstage 3.0.
Many new AT fabrics have been released in that time, but nothing with the gain of XD.
Likely you have answered this question before, but is there something inherent in the vinyl coating process that prevents a tighter weave?
Perhaps smaller holes are simply bridged and filled in by the coating, making the screen non-AT?
With the lumen demands of HDR and pixel density of UHD a few db's attenuation of high frequencies would be small trade off for an XD type fabric that was invisible at 9 or 10 feet.


----------



## StevenC56

DavidK442 said:


> Hi chris.
> Years ago I received a sample of your XD material with the hope of using it in my small theater.
> Unfortunately my viewing distance is just too close for the weave structure.
> I have been following along on this thread ever since, hoping for a Centerstage 3.0.
> Many new AT fabrics have been released in that time, but nothing with the gain of XD.
> Likely you have answered this question before, but is there something inherent in the vinyl coating process that prevents a tighter weave?
> Perhaps smaller holes are simply bridged and filled in by the coating, making the screen non-AT?
> With the lumen demands of HDR and pixel density of UHD a few db's attenuation of high frequencies would be small trade off for an XD type fabric that was invisible at 9 or 10 feet.


I'm sure Chris will chime in, but it sounds like you are a candidate for the newer CenterStage UF material. I think the gain is only slightly less than the XD, but with a finer weave that would work at your viewing distance.


----------



## DavidK442

StevenC56 said:


> I'm sure Chris will chime in, but it sounds like you are a candidate for the newer CenterStage UF material. I think the gain is only slightly less than the XD, but with a finer weave that would work at your viewing distance.


I have a sample of the UF as well. It is all relative of course, but side by side, the gain of the UF is considerably lower than the XD.


----------



## Ellebob

The UF is a good choice for closer seating distance but you will lose about 20% brightness over the XD. The NEO material is the best AT material I have seen for smoothness of screen. It is the first woven screen I have seen that really looks like a solid screen but it comes at a price! The NEO is not much better for brightness than the UF, maybe 10%. Chris will give all the details.


----------



## Blue

Ellebob said:


> The UF is a good choice for closer seating distance but you will lose about 20% brightness over the XD. The NEO material is the best AT material I have seen for smoothness of screen. It is the first woven screen I have seen that really looks like a solid screen but it comes at a price! The NEO is not much better for brightness than the UF, maybe 10%. Chris will give all the details.


Is NEO available through SeymourAV? I didn't see it on their website, but maybe I missed it. I was pretty exhausted last night when surfing the forums.


----------



## chriscmore

The XD uses what they call extruded threads, as it's pvc covered over a fiber through an extruder. The smallest size I've found that can be extruded with our pvc formulation is about 0.012" diameter. For this type of material, that's very small and gives the XD a fine texture.

But uncoated threads, like your clothes, have thread diameters maybe 1/10 the size, so they can be woven into ultrafine patterns. When we lose the pvc coating, we lose the formulation I'd developed which contains artificial pearlescent powders, so the threads are naturally less reflective. 

Squeezing the balloon gives us the most reflective woven material in the industry (XD), but then a pretty wide gap to the uncoated materials (UF, Enlightor-Neo) of about 20%. Keep in mind gain is not an awesomeness rating, as a 20% lower gain will also benefit you with 20% lower black levels and a little theoretical room splash contamination resistance. In my opinion, low gain screens are the future with all of their inherent benefits, as projectors naturally get brighter every year. While there are a few brightness junkies out there, HDR stands for high dynamic range, which values the black levels at least as much. Spectral highlights are neat but the benefits of HDR are in the color bucket, bit depth, and amount of information dedicated to low-IRE content. Let the TV viewers put flashlights into their eyeballs.

The Enlightor-Neo is only a Seymour-Screen Excellence product, available through the CEDIA channels. As always, I recommend evaluating samples to see what you like and if the Neo is worth the stretch.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## EC

chriscmore said:


> .
> Keep in mind gain is not an awesomeness rating, as a 20% lower gain will also benefit you with 20% lower black levels and a little theoretical room splash contamination resistance. In my opinion, low gain screens are the future with all of their inherent benefits, as projectors naturally get brighter every year. While there are a few brightness junkies out there, HDR stands for high dynamic range, which values the black levels at least as much. Spectral highlights are neat but the benefits of HDR are in the color bucket, bit depth, and amount of information dedicated to low-IRE content.



Chris,


I am a finally a few weeks from ordering the HD100 screen as my HT is nearing completion.. I originally planned on the XD material but reading the above, I am on the fence and maybe leaning towards the UF material. Here are the particulars of my setup


- Room is 28' * 11.5' * 7'5'. Area in front of screen is 23' * 11.5'. The room is a bat cave:, Rosco black paint on walls and ceilings, black velvet on screen wall and black velvet the width of the room 5' out from the screen on the ceiling , black carpet rug, black chairs etc.
- first row is 11' from the screen, second row is approximately 16' from the screen on a riser
- Seymour HD100 with precision frame (soon to be)
- JVC RS540u (pseudo 4k, HDR PJ, "1900" lumens, 130,000:1 native contrast ) at a throw distance of 14.5', Oppo 203 as the HDR source
- centre speaker 3' behind the AT screen. There is 5' depth in total behind the screen where all the walls and ceiling are covered with 2" of lincoustic, floor is black rubber gym mat, still playing with placement of the L and R behind the screen.


I value contrast slightly over brightness. I still want images to "pop". My previous HT 7 years ago was a Barco Graphics 808 CRT shining on 96" wide screen (1.3 gain) and that was bright enough for me! I haven't had a HT since my move 7-8 years ago. I also like a slight gain in the treble region and uncompressed midrange and treble. I will be looking at compression driver based speakers in the near future. I trust the higher sound attention UF is not audible compared to the XD.


Give the above and your vast knowledge and experience, do you think the UF the screen material the better choice that will satisfy my requirements?


Thanks


Eric


----------



## chriscmore

EC said:


> Chris,
> 
> 
> I am a finally a few weeks from ordering the HD100 screen as my HT is nearing completion.. I originally planned on the XD material but reading the above, I am on the fence and maybe leaning towards the UF material. Here are the particulars of my setup
> 
> 
> - Room is 28' * 11.5' * 7'5'. Area in front of screen is 23' * 11.5'. The room is a bat cave:, Rosco black paint on walls and ceilings, black velvet on screen wall and black velvet the width of the room 5' out from the screen on the ceiling , black carpet rug, black chairs etc.
> - first row is 11' from the screen, second row is approximately 16' from the screen on a riser
> - Seymour HD100 with precision frame (soon to be)
> - JVC RS540u (pseudo 4k, HDR PJ, "1900" lumens, 130,000:1 native contrast ) at a throw distance of 14.5', Oppo 203 as the HDR source
> - centre speaker 3' behind the AT screen. There is 5' depth in total behind the screen where all the walls and ceiling are covered with 2" of lincoustic, floor is black rubber gym mat, still playing with placement of the L and R behind the screen.
> 
> 
> I value contrast slightly over brightness. I still want images to "pop". My previous HT 7 years ago was a Barco Graphics 808 CRT shining on 96" wide screen (1.3 gain) and that was bright enough for me! I haven't had a HT since my move 7-8 years ago. I also like a slight gain in the treble region and uncompressed midrange and treble. I will be looking at compression driver based speakers in the near future. I trust the higher sound attention UF is not audible compared to the XD.
> 
> 
> Give the above and your vast knowledge and experience, do you think the UF the screen material the better choice that will satisfy my requirements?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Eric


For your relatively smaller size, the UF would be the best for your seating distance. While it has more overall attenuation, it's response curve is flatter, so if you're trying to keep that 18-20k up it would also be a better choice. A simple level calibration is all that's required.

For compression based speakers, you should go to JTR speakers. They're exceptional.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## EC

Chris,

Great, thanks for your response. I was initially looking at the XD material because of the excellent accucal pdf / report that stated the XD was "best in class" for AT screens. Good to know the UF has the flatter attentuation curve because my prepro doesn't have room correction. My next prepro probably won't have any room correction either.

Eric


----------



## Ellebob

Blue said:


> Is NEO available through SeymourAV? I didn't see it on their website, but maybe I missed it. I was pretty exhausted last night when surfing the forums.


Neo is from Screen Excellence and available through dealers and not Seymour-Screen Excellence direct. However, Seymour is the Rep for it in the US. So Chris is able to answer any questions on it and probably knows who in your area is a dealer. It is considerably more expensive than the UF about 2.5x the price.


----------



## WuzzTheFuzz

chriscmore said:


> The XD uses what they call extruded threads, as it's pvc covered over a fiber through an extruder. The smallest size I've found that can be extruded with our pvc formulation is about 0.012" diameter. For this type of material, that's very small and gives the XD a fine texture.
> 
> But uncoated threads, like your clothes, have thread diameters maybe 1/10 the size, so they can be woven into ultrafine patterns. When we lose the pvc coating, we lose the formulation I'd developed which contains artificial pearlescent powders, so the threads are naturally less reflective.
> 
> Squeezing the balloon gives us the most reflective woven material in the industry (XD), but then a pretty wide gap to the uncoated materials (UF, Enlightor-Neo) of about 20%. Keep in mind gain is not an awesomeness rating, as a 20% lower gain will also benefit you with 20% lower black levels and a little theoretical room splash contamination resistance. In my opinion, low gain screens are the future with all of their inherent benefits, as projectors naturally get brighter every year. While there are a few brightness junkies out there, HDR stands for high dynamic range, which values the black levels at least as much. Spectral highlights are neat but the benefits of HDR are in the color bucket, bit depth, and amount of information dedicated to low-IRE content. Let the TV viewers put flashlights into their eyeballs.
> 
> The Enlightor-Neo is only a Seymour-Screen Excellence product, available through the CEDIA channels. As always, I recommend evaluating samples to see what you like and if the Neo is worth the stretch.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I'll chime in here as well, to get Chris's (or others') opinion. 
Light controlled room, dark walls/ceiling. Projector is a 5040ub, and it can be placed between 14' and 17' from the screen. 
I'd like a 140" DIY AT screen 2.39:1 or a 148" 16:9 (undecided still). Main sitting position would be 11' away for the scope screen, about 12' for the 16:9
Which material would look better? Would the UF have enough gain for this projector at that range of distances?

If you guys can talk me into one or the other, I'll be in Ames anyway this weekend for a wedding, would be a quick sale!


----------



## dreal_sow

Hello is this a good screen to purchase?


----------



## mry110

Has anyone taken delivery of a Proscenium screen lately? I ordered mine 2 months ago, and I'm trying to figure out where I might be in the queue.


----------



## deewan

WuzzTheFuzz said:


> If you guys can talk me into one or the other, I'll be in Ames anyway this weekend for a wedding, would be a quick sale!


I think you can get away with the XD screen. But personally I like the UF better when in those bubble seating distances where you may or may not notice the difference between the two screen materials. Since you'll be in Ames... can you pick up two screens and bring mine to Cedar Rapids for me? I'll even let you pay for mine.


----------



## WuzzTheFuzz

deewan said:


> I think you can get away with the XD screen. But personally I like the UF better when in those bubble seating distances where you may or may not notice the difference between the two screen materials. Since you'll be in Ames... can you pick up two screens and bring mine to Cedar Rapids for me? I'll even let you pay for mine.


Have you ordered your UF screen already? Any idea on what the wait times are? Also, your build thread looks awesome, I'd be willing to pick up your screen to check out your build!


----------



## deewan

WuzzTheFuzz said:


> Have you ordered your UF screen already? Any idea on what the wait times are? Also, your build thread looks awesome, I'd be willing to pick up your screen to check out your build!


Thanks! I haven't ordered my screen yet so I don't have an idea on the lead time. Thinking about it more, I should start putting together my screen order and get it placed. I was going to drive over and pick it up to save on shipping costs.

You are always welcome to come check out my room.


----------



## chriscmore

WuzzTheFuzz said:


> I'll chime in here as well, to get Chris's (or others') opinion.
> Light controlled room, dark walls/ceiling. Projector is a 5040ub, and it can be placed between 14' and 17' from the screen.
> I'd like a 140" DIY AT screen 2.39:1 or a 148" 16:9 (undecided still). Main sitting position would be 11' away for the scope screen, about 12' for the 16:9
> Which material would look better? Would the UF have enough gain for this projector at that range of distances?
> 
> If you guys can talk me into one or the other, I'll be in Ames anyway this weekend for a wedding, would be a quick sale!


I'd still lean toward the UF for your seating distance. The 5040 had decent power and projectors are getting brighter every year. But the UF will be future proof at 11ft because it'll look perfectly smooth. You may end up running the Epson on high, but they're very capable being run like that with respect to bulb life, etc.

Normally a DIY order is just a day or so. We could even cut it while you're here.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

mry110 said:


> Has anyone taken delivery of a Proscenium screen lately? I ordered mine 2 months ago, and I'm trying to figure out where I might be in the queue.


If you give me your last name I can look to see where it's at. And while I don't rearrange their order casually, if you have an important deadline to hit, also let me know that. Some orders are more urgent than others, although since this line is backed up while we're training new people, I'm considering them all belatedly urgent.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## mutheater

I decided to pop into the forum after building my theater 7 years ago to see what is trending today....and was surprised to see this thread alive and kicking.

I used the Center Stage XD material and absolutely love it. The fact I was able to place all my front speakers behind the screen gives my theater a clean look. I also like the fact the center channel is placed in the middle (rather than below) of the AT screen. It places the dialogue in a more natural position versus originating above/below the screen.

I went middle of the road on my build (remember this was 7 years ago)....Epson 8350 projector, XD screen, BIC subwoofer, seat shakers, Berkline recliners....and we love the space.


----------



## Blue

My first row of seating turned out to be closer than I had envisioned, but it was necessary to squeeze in the counter in the back that my wife wants. Eyes will be 9'8" from the screen. I assume that's a UF seating distance? What's the tradeoff of using UF versus XD?


----------



## ddgdl

Blue said:


> My first row of seating turned out to be closer than I had envisioned, but it was necessary to squeeze in the counter in the back that my wife wants. Eyes will be 9'8" from the screen. I assume that's a UF seating distance? What's the tradeoff of using UF versus XD?


Almost certainly a UF seating distance, but get samples to double check. The trade off is lower gain - UF is around 0.8, XD is around 0.95


----------



## bigbadbob

*PM Sent*

Chris, 
PM sent to you.
RG


----------



## Rock Danger

@chriscmore

I'm just about to order a 114'' (viewable) 16:9 Centre Stage XD, premier 3.3 at a seating distance of about 11 - ish feet. I've back and forthed a bit with Jon who has been very helpful. My screen is going to have to be tapped with blindnuts and have eyebolts fitted, but was curious as to what the inner diameter or the eyebolts was as we can do the cabling on site? The fittings for the ceiling and to allow for adjustment to level it off will require some thought. 

The website, from my understanding is the nicopress cable is just under 1mm?? I've no experience with this stuff myself but that's almost sewing thread thickness. Have I gone mad?


I've seen these screens in action many times on different installs here in the UK the look very very good and it made choosing them an easy decision (apart from the 21% import duty)

thanks!


----------



## chriscmore

Rock Danger said:


> @chriscmore
> 
> I'm just about to order a 114'' (viewable) 16:9 Centre Stage XD, premier 3.3 at a seating distance of about 11 - ish feet. I've back and forthed a bit with Jon who has been very helpful. My screen is going to have to be tapped with blindnuts and have eyebolts fitted, but was curious as to what the inner diameter or the eyebolts was as we can do the cabling on site? The fittings for the ceiling and to allow for adjustment to level it off will require some thought.
> 
> The website, from my understanding is the nicopress cable is just under 1mm?? I've no experience with this stuff myself but that's almost sewing thread thickness. Have I gone mad?
> 
> 
> I've seen these screens in action many times on different installs here in the UK the look very very good and it made choosing them an easy decision (apart from the 21% import duty)
> 
> thanks!


Hi Mr. Danger - 

Because the range of screen sizes and weights are so varied, we offer both a heavy duty or light duty option. If you're having it 1/4-20 threaded for the HD eyebolts, their eye diameter is 3/4". If you're having it 10-24 threaded for the LD eyebolts, their eye diameter is 3/8".

You can use any chain or cabling you want. If we supply the cabling we have a HD cable that is 0.063" diameter and a pair are rated for 180 lbs. The LD cable is 0.032" diameter and a pair are rated for 40 lbs. You can still get adjustability with these if you need, as we can leave one end uncrimped so you can adjust to what you want and crush the sleeve yourself.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Rock Danger

chriscmore said:


> Hi Mr. Danger -
> 
> Because the range of screen sizes and weights are so varied, we offer both a heavy duty or light duty option. If you're having it 1/4-20 threaded for the HD eyebolts, their eye diameter is 3/4". If you're having it 10-24 threaded for the LD eyebolts, their eye diameter is 3/8".
> 
> You can use any chain or cabling you want. If we supply the cabling we have a HD cable that is 0.063" diameter and a pair are rated for 180 lbs. The LD cable is 0.032" diameter and a pair are rated for 40 lbs. You can still get adjustability with these if you need, as we can leave one end uncrimped so you can adjust to what you want and crush the sleeve yourself.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris



Hey Chris, 

Thanks for the reply - I think in an email somewhere Jon has put 10-24 in an email so that would be 9.5mm with 1.6mm cable or thicker. I think the cable and crimpers are easy access to me, just wondering what the best fittings for the ceiling is as it is't level.. some food for thought I guess..

My order was in today to go all the way to sunny Belfast N. Ireland - I'm sure her majesty's customs will be more than happy to slap 21% import tax on it.

Based on the choice of screens available here, the Seymour stuff is probably the best constructed and I've seen it used with projectors many times the price of mine. 

Here's a image of how things are at the minute.. the walls aren't that colour.. it photographs really weird.

Might need a little hand with one more thing.. should be fairly straightforward tho.


Edit: As far as I'm aware the minimum distance from speaker to screen is 2'' - correct?


----------



## jerryyng

Hi everyone. I recently built a dedicated home theater and I'm looking to purchase a Seymour AV premier AT screen (2.35 format, 130" wide). However, I'm having a difficult time choosing between the XD and UF material.

My setup is as follows:

- Dedicated room with total light control.
- In wall Triad LCR speakers located behind the screen.
- Epson 5040ub projector mounted as close as possible to the screen wall to maximize light output while still being able to project a 130" wide image. 
- Eyeballs to screen at just under 12 ft.

I've been sampling the XD and UF materials side by side for the past few weeks and I don't notice a significant difference between the two most of the time. The XD material looks a bit brighter while the UF material seems to have better black levels. I have not noticed the weave pattern in the XD material from my seating distance. 

The UF material certainly seems bright enough when viewing SDR material. I have not had the opportunity to view any HDR material since I'm waiting for the new Panasonic 4K DVD players to be released this summer. 

Here are some of my questions/concerns. I'm hoping some of you who are familiar with the XD and UF materials and the Epson 5040 projector can provide some guidance:

1. I've read that the light output on the Epson drops when viewing HDR material. Is the drop significant enough that the UF material seems too dark in which case I'd be better off with the XD material? Does anyone have any experience with viewing HDR material on the UF screen using the 5040?

2. I cannot see the weave on the sample XD material at my current seating distance just shy of 12'. Does this suggest that I won't see it when viewing a full size screen or can the weave become more noticeable as the screen size increases? 

3. I like the extra brightness of the XD over the UF since it appears to provide a bit more "pop" to the image. However, the UF material certainly seems to produces better black levels when compared side by side. Assuming the weave is not a problem, does the decision between the XD and UF materials come down to preference of "brightness" vs "black levels" or are there other factors to be considered? 

4. For those of you with no weave concerns who had to choose between XD and UF, how did you decide and are you happy with your decision? 

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## Pluggz

jerryyng said:


> Hi everyone. I recently built a dedicated home theater and I'm looking to purchase a Seymour AV premier AT screen (2.35 format, 130" wide). However, I'm having a difficult time choosing between the XD and UF material.
> 
> My setup is as follows:
> 
> - Dedicated room with total light control.
> - In wall Triad LCR speakers located behind the screen.
> - Epson 5040ub projector mounted as close as possible to the screen wall to maximize light output while still being able to project a 130" wide image.
> - Eyeballs to screen at just under 12 ft.
> 
> I've been sampling the XD and UF materials side by side for the past few weeks and I don't notice a significant difference between the two most of the time. The XD material looks a bit brighter while the UF material seems to have better black levels. I have not noticed the weave pattern in the XD material from my seating distance.
> 
> The UF material certainly seems bright enough when viewing SDR material. I have not had the opportunity to view any HDR material since I'm waiting for the new Panasonic 4K DVD players to be released this summer.
> 
> Here are some of my questions/concerns. I'm hoping some of you who are familiar with the XD and UF materials and the Epson 5040 projector can provide some guidance:
> 
> 1. I've read that the light output on the Epson drops when viewing HDR material. Is the drop significant enough that the UF material seems too dark in which case I'd be better off with the XD material? Does anyone have any experience with viewing HDR material on the UF screen using the 5040?
> 
> 2. I cannot see the weave on the sample XD material at my current seating distance just shy of 12'. Does this suggest that I won't see it when viewing a full size screen or can the weave become more noticeable as the screen size increases?
> 
> 3. I like the extra brightness of the XD over the UF since it appears to provide a bit more "pop" to the image. However, the UF material certainly seems to produces better black levels when compared side by side. Assuming the weave is not a problem, does the decision between the XD and UF materials come down to preference of "brightness" vs "black levels" or are there other factors to be considered?
> 
> 4. For those of you with no weave concerns who had to choose between XD and UF, how did you decide and are you happy with your decision?
> 
> Any input would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jerry


I have some of the same questions...am primarily wondering which to go with but have not had the opportunity to look at either of the samples that were sent with a projector on them....and unfortunately don't know that I will be able to before ordering. 

Our projector will be about 17' from screen and eyes I believe will be about 10' or so away from a 137.7" screen. I will likely be using a JVC DLAX790...that or the 990.

I will have the same light controlled/dark room and Triads as well all around.

So I basically have to go by opinion and feedback on this...feel like I cant go wrong with the UF being that my distance may be a little close, but also don't want to miss out on something that might look nicer and maybe the distance isn't an issue anyhow... Thoughts?!


----------



## jjcook

One method to really prove the weave won't be visible in the future (with brighter HDR projectors) is zoom down the projected image to a smaller area to increase the brightness to at least 30-40 ftL which is in the range of Dolby Cinema HDR brightness levels.

And the best content that I've found to look for weave is panning downhill skiing/snowboarding snow scenes such as from the Art of Flight (used to be on Netflix not sure presently).


----------



## gil393

jerryyng said:


> 2. I cannot see the weave on the sample XD material at my current seating distance just shy of 12'. Does this suggest that I won't see it when viewing a full size screen or can the weave become more noticeable as the screen size increases?
> 
> 4. For those of you with no weave concerns who had to choose between XD and UF, how did you decide and are you happy with your decision?
> 
> Any input would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jerry


I have seating at 12', 16', 20' on a 200" 16:9 using the xd. I can't see any pattern (at 12') and neither can my wife. My daughter (16) claims she can see the weave at 12' but I think she is just pulling my leg. The best way to see, imho, is overhead fluorescent. With actual projected material you can go to 9-10' without much issue (assuming you have something interesting to watch and are not just look for patterns). We did the super bowl with the front row at about 10 and nobody complained. I could not see any issues when watching at that distance unless specifically looking really hard for it, which gets kind of boring. The biggest issue is motion sickness from being so close to the movement but that is not a screen issue (advantage XD since it is washable in place). 

As for deciding, I came from Spandex and 0.7 gain and like the brightness much better. The Spandex is a much smoother surface with respect to pattern but the XD, imho, is sharper.


----------



## Fazzz

Really odd question here. I have a movie poster lightbox (pic below) for my room and am making a new skin showing logos of the theater components it features (Dolby Atmos, etc.). I can't for the life of me find a clean Seymour AV logo anywhere on the web. Anyone (Chris?) have a jpg or png logo they can share? Would love people who view a movie in my room that they're watching it on the best screen available. Anyone?


----------



## chriscmore

Fazzz said:


> Really odd question here. I have a movie poster lightbox (pic below) for my room and am making a new skin showing logos of the theater components it features (Dolby Atmos, etc.). I can't for the life of me find a clean Seymour AV logo anywhere on the web. Anyone (Chris?) have a jpg or png logo they can share? Would love people who view a movie in my room that they're watching it on the best screen available. Anyone?


Let's see if these work or if you'd like any others. I can hit the master AI files if necessary on most of these, too.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Fazzz

chriscmore said:


> Let's see if these work or if you'd like any others. I can hit the master AI files if necessary on most of these, too.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris - many thanks. That was just what I was looking for. I've been very pleased with my UF screen so I want to make sure you get your proper credit for everyone who comes in to watch a movie.


----------



## Blue

gil393 said:


> I have seating at 12', 16', 20' on a 200" 16:9 using the xd. I can't see any pattern (at 12') and neither can my wife. My daughter (16) claims she can see the weave at 12' but I think she is just pulling my leg. The best way to see, imho, is overhead fluorescent. With actual projected material you can go to 9-10' without much issue (assuming you have something interesting to watch and are not just look for patterns). We did the super bowl with the front row at about 10 and nobody complained. I could not see any issues when watching at that distance unless specifically looking really hard for it, which gets kind of boring. The biggest issue is motion sickness from being so close to the movement but that is not a screen issue (advantage XD since it is washable in place).
> 
> As for deciding, I came from Spandex and 0.7 gain and like the brightness much better. The Spandex is a much smoother surface with respect to pattern but the XD, imho, is sharper.


My front row is at about 9.5 to 10, depending on whether you recline the seat. I have UF and XD samples, along with Silver Ticket, and will test them this weekend. I thought I was going to need UF, but you've given me some hope that the XD might work out. It would be nice to have the higher gain if the weave doesn't become too much of a distraction.


----------



## chriscmore

At that seating distance, I'd prefer the UF, and enjoy the -20% lower black levels and up to -36% reduction in room splash contamination.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Blue

chriscmore said:


> At that seating distance, I'd prefer the UF, and enjoy the -20% lower black levels and up to -36% reduction in room splash contamination.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks, Chris. Your company promptly sent me samples, so I'll get a better read on it this weekend. I've actually had the samples for a couple weeks, but still don't have a projector to test them with. I'll receive the projector on Friday.

Roughly how long does it take to receive a screen after ordering it?


----------



## chriscmore

Since every screen is custom built, it takes about a week for a fixed frame screen and three weeks for a retractable. Of course if you need us to hit a date we're up for the challenge.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## jerryyng

I'm looking to purchase a SeymourAV screen 130” wide in a 2.35 format for a CIH setup. I'm on the fence with whether to purchase the masking panels. At the very least, I’ll probably have them install the magnets in case I decide to add the panels later. 

For anyone who owns masking panels, can you offer an opinion on their value? Do you use them regularly or have you stopped using them because you don’t see much benefit or are just tired of having to put them up and take them down?

My room is a dedicated home theater with full light control (if that matters).

Thanks. 

Jerry


----------



## StevenC56

jerryyng said:


> I'm looking to purchase a SeymourAV screen 130” wide in a 2.35 format for a CIH setup. I'm on the fence with whether to purchase the masking panels. At the very least, I’ll probably have them install the magnets in case I decide to add the panels later.
> 
> For anyone who owns masking panels, can you offer an opinion on their value? Do you use them regularly or have you stopped using them because you don’t see much benefit or are just tired of having to put them up and take them down?
> 
> My room is a dedicated home theater with full light control (if that matters).
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jerry


I have a 105" wide 2:35 retractable, and wish I had side masks. Chris has mentioned a possible masking retrofit for retractables a few times, but nothing yet.  Are you listening Chris? 2018 sounds like the right year to do it!!


----------



## Tedd

Masking is something you think you might not need, until you experience it. 

And once you have it, there's no going back. 

Pull a Nike and "Just Do It"....


----------



## scottyb

StevenC56 said:


> I have a 105" wide 2:35 retractable, and wish I had side masks. Chris has mentioned a possible masking retrofit for retractables a few times, but nothing yet.  Are you listening Chris? 2018 sounds like the right year to do it!!


Steve,

Just break down and buy a new screen!!! You can sell your old one and it won't even cost you much!!

What size screen do you have now and what material?

Scott


----------



## StevenC56

scottyb said:


> Steve,
> 
> Just break down and buy a new screen!!! You can sell your old one and it won't even cost you much!!
> 
> What size screen do you have now and what material?
> 
> Scott


Hey Scott! It's a Centerstage XD 105 wide 2:35 retractable. Love the screen-Just wish it had side masking for non scope movies.


----------



## nonstopdoc1

Does anyone knows what’s the difference between M1.5 and M3.5 Millibel Velvet black masking panel for Seymour AV fixed screen? Website states that is 1.5” vs 3.5” inside border. I can’t understand what that exactly means. Does that means width of the panel? Shouldn’t both panels be of equal width for a fixed screen size for a certain size? I am hoping someone here can help me understand it.


----------



## ScottAvery

nonstopdoc1 said:


> Does anyone knows what’s the difference between M1.5 and M3.5 Millibel Velvet black masking panel for Seymour AV fixed screen? Website states that is 1.5” vs 3.5” inside border. I can’t understand what that exactly means. Does that means width of the panel? Shouldn’t both panels be of equal width for a fixed screen size for a certain size? I am hoping someone here can help me understand it.


Like a picture frame... Is the bezel/border wide or narrow? This number is the width of the border, not the length of the border, which would be the width/height of the screen.


----------



## EC

from the Seymour AV website store:

Millibel, velvet/ black, 0.3dB AT
(3.5" inside border is standard for CH, optional is a 1.5" border)
(1.5" inside border is standard for CW panels)


Looks like the difference is if the masking panels are vertical (CH= Constant Height) or horizontal (CW = Constant Width).


----------



## nonstopdoc1

ScottAvery said:


> Like a picture frame... Is the bezel/border wide or narrow? This number is the width of the border, not the length of the border, which would be the width/height of the screen.


Do you mean width of screen frame?


----------



## ScottAvery

nonstopdoc1 said:


> Do you mean width of screen frame?


Never mind me, I misunderstood.

There is a picture at the top of this page showing the inside edge: http://www.seymourav.com/masking.asp

The part closest to the white screen is very dark black and recessed to screen level so no shadow.


----------



## Pluggz

I recently decided on the Screen Excellence Enlightor Neo and was wondering how close behind I can place ported subs? I'll have two Rythmik audio subs, each with 2 15's and 3 ports per sub....any ideas or thoughts on this being an issue? I think I'll have 8-10" of space from front of subs to back of screen...if pointed forward.

Any input appreciated!


----------



## chriscmore

If you get the Millibel AT masking panels, we stitch an interior edge of velvet so you get just as good light absorption at the pixel edges as from the frame. For smaller panels (typically the top/bottoms), then often the 1.5" wide velvet interior edge is desired so it maximizes the AT mesh zone. For big panels, often the 3.5" wide velvet interior edge is preferred because it matches the frame size.

If you're directly firing a port into the screen, I'd recommend a foot or so just to get rid of air velocity issues. Otherwise, the screen is acoustically transparent enough to not care. The minimum screen to speaker recommendation is 1", so it can hang right over in-wall speakers.

Seaton stacked eight, 18" subs directly firing into the back of a screen. While they were sealed cabinets, he found at about 5" is where he could induce some movement with subsonic test tones. I think our record is 21kW behind the screen, so practically speaking it's not a concern.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Pluggz

chriscmore said:


> If you're directly firing a port into the screen, I'd recommend a foot or so just to get rid of air velocity issues. Otherwise, the screen is acoustically transparent enough to not care. The minimum screen to speaker recommendation is 1", so it can hang right over in-wall speakers.
> 
> Seaton stacked eight, 18" subs directly firing into the back of a screen. While they were sealed cabinets, he found at about 5" is where he could induce some movement with subsonic test tones. I think our record is 21kW behind the screen, so practically speaking it's not a concern.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Got it, thanks!


----------



## deezwho

Does Seymour AV offer any in-ceiling/recessed install options for the screens?


----------



## nonstopdoc1

Are Seymour AV's premier frame (3.3') and masking panels same as seymour-screen excellence's Series - 3 frame and the magnetic masking panels?


----------



## chriscmore

deezwho said:


> Does Seymour AV offer any in-ceiling/recessed install options for the screens?


For in-ceiling applications, install the case like an on-wall on the side of a joist and trim out a slot for the bar to drop through. Keep the cavity accessible for the future.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

nonstopdoc1 said:


> Are Seymour AV's premier frame (3.3') and masking panels same as seymour-screen excellence's Series - 3 frame and the magnetic masking panels?


Yes, but the S-SE line has the grip channel attachment method so you can install the ultra-fine Enlightor-Neo material. It's less convenient than the simple grommet/o-ring method that S-AV uses, but the end result is better.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Check out this very cool AVS Forum Home Theater of the Month:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ction/2980964-home-theater-month-aladdin.html

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## km16823

chriscmore said:


> If you're directly firing a port into the screen, I'd recommend a foot or so just to get rid of air velocity issues. Otherwise, the screen is acoustically transparent enough to not care. The minimum screen to speaker recommendation is 1", so it can hang right over in-wall speakers.
> 
> Seaton stacked eight, 18" subs directly firing into the back of a screen. While they were sealed cabinets, he found at about 5" is where he could induce some movement with subsonic test tones. I think our record is 21kW behind the screen, so practically speaking it's not a concern.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris,

I'm getting ready to order a 110" Proscenium 2.40 in the next week or so (I've been working with Jon). I am wondering though if I can wall mount a MartinLogan SLM XL behind the screen as a center channel. The dimensions of the speaker including mount is 34.1"L x 6.4"W x 1.89"D. The speaker can be mounted horizontally or vertically. I believe it should fit behind the screen frame vertically (and possibly horizontally) but that would place the speaker approximately 1/2" from the screen I believe. Is this feasible? Whether or not I can mount the speaker behind the screen affects some other aspects of design that I'm trying to work out before we begin construciton next week. If it does work, I might be tempted to even get (3) of the speakers as a LCR arrangement and sell my ML towers.

Assuming the speaker behind the screen is an acceptable solution, it brings up a couple of follow-up questions. I am using a Sony 385 4k projector and my eyeballs to screen is approximately 10.5'. I seem to fall right on the cusp between XD and UD materials. Also, is a matte black wall behind the screen, along with the black speaker(s), enough to not need the black backing layer? The room is completely light controlled.

Thank you,
Ken


----------



## chriscmore

km16823 said:


> Chris,
> 
> I'm getting ready to order a 110" Proscenium 2.40 in the next week or so (I've been working with Jon). I am wondering though if I can wall mount a MartinLogan SLM XL behind the screen as a center channel. The dimensions of the speaker including mount is 34.1"L x 6.4"W x 1.89"D. The speaker can be mounted horizontally or vertically. I believe it should fit behind the screen frame vertically (and possibly horizontally) but that would place the speaker approximately 1/2" from the screen I believe. Is this feasible? Whether or not I can mount the speaker behind the screen affects some other aspects of design that I'm trying to work out before we begin construciton next week. If it does work, I might be tempted to even get (3) of the speakers as a LCR arrangement and sell my ML towers.
> 
> Assuming the speaker behind the screen is an acceptable solution, it brings up a couple of follow-up questions. I am using a Sony 385 4k projector and my eyeballs to screen is approximately 10.5'. I seem to fall right on the cusp between XD and UD materials. Also, is a matte black wall behind the screen, along with the black speaker(s), enough to not need the black backing layer? The room is completely light controlled.
> 
> Thank you,
> Ken


Since their frequency response is only down to 100Hz, you'd have to cross them to a sub at least that high. I'd cross them 120-150 over to some smaller Rythmik sealed servo subs, because their servos and 8-12" drivers integrate superbly with higher crossover points. I have a small system that uses on-wall Maggies and 4x 8" Rythmiks.

While our materials are designed to hang directly over in-wall speakers, getting the clearance to the drivers to 1/2" is a bit thin, but the extra-high crossover point would keep enough bass out of the LCR that you'll be fine. They use so many woofers and radiators because the extra shallow design limits the excursion of the motors. 
This also helps reduce a chance of affecting the screen. You can test it with something loud with credits/text on it and worst case you could fir-strip a perimeter of trim behind the screen to space it out another 3/4".

Don't get the metal grills. Metal and plastic grills are acoustically terrible. Best practice would be three, vertically oriented as identical LCRs, exactly where they're supposed to be. Space the L/R as widely as possible.

I'd go with the Center Stage UF at that seating distance. It's lower gain will offer better black levels and a little protection from room splash contamination. Get the surfaces matte black behind and you won't need the black backing, either. Behind the screen is sometimes a nice place to sneak in some acoustic foam, which is also extra light absorbing as a bonus.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## km16823

chriscmore said:


> Since their frequency response is only down to 100Hz, you'd have to cross them to a sub at least that high. I'd cross them 120-150 over to some smaller Rythmik sealed servo subs, because their servos and 8-12" drivers integrate superbly with higher crossover points. I have a small system that uses on-wall Maggies and 4x 8" Rythmiks.
> 
> While our materials are designed to hang directly over in-wall speakers, getting the clearance to the drivers to 1/2" is a bit thin, but the extra-high crossover point would keep enough bass out of the LCR that you'll be fine. They use so many woofers and radiators because the extra shallow design limits the excursion of the motors.
> This also helps reduce a chance of affecting the screen. You can test it with something loud with credits/text on it and worst case you could fir-strip a perimeter of trim behind the screen to space it out another 3/4".
> 
> Don't get the metal grills. Metal and plastic grills are acoustically terrible. Best practice would be three, vertically oriented as identical LCRs, exactly where they're supposed to be. Space the L/R as widely as possible.
> 
> I'd go with the Center Stage UF at that seating distance. It's lower gain will offer better black levels and a little protection from room splash contamination. Get the surfaces matte black behind and you won't need the black backing, either. Behind the screen is sometimes a nice place to sneak in some acoustic foam, which is also extra light absorbing as a bonus.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris,

Thank you for the quick response. I have (2) ML Dynamo 700W's and an older Mirage 12" sub (both do up to 200 hz). Should be no worries on that front. I will have to give some serious thought to going all (3) behind the screen. Certainly would make for a much cleaner look. Would also allow for a slightly larger screen. Will have to give this some thought.

I will make sure to order the UF screen per your recommendation. 

Thank you again for your help.
Ken


----------



## drunkpenguin

I'm seriously considering changing to a seymore at screen. I've been using a Carada Brilliant White NON AT screen for the past decade but Im thinking about remoding the front wall and putting the speakers behind the wall. They are sending me samples to check out but any advice on which material type I should really be looking at? I sit at 11.5' from the face of my speakers. Seems 11' is around the cutoff to go from one to the other.

Another question, when I test the samples, is it ok to tape them to my existing screen or will that give me a false image since the other screen is behind it? Hows the best way to test them?


----------



## JaremyP

Curious how people feel about the Seymour Glacier White material compared to matte white from companies like Silver Ticket or Elite?


----------



## chriscmore

drunkpenguin said:


> I'm seriously considering changing to a seymore at screen. I've been using a Carada Brilliant White NON AT screen for the past decade but Im thinking about remoding the front wall and putting the speakers behind the wall. They are sending me samples to check out but any advice on which material type I should really be looking at? I sit at 11.5' from the face of my speakers. Seems 11' is around the cutoff to go from one to the other.
> 
> Another question, when I test the samples, is it ok to tape them to my existing screen or will that give me a false image since the other screen is behind it? Hows the best way to test them?


I'd recommend the Center Stage UF at that seating distance. Make sure when you tested the samples that something black is behind the material so you don't get inaccurate brightness.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## JonnyFive54950

Hi All, been chatting with Jon about a Seymour screen for my application. We are between the XD and UF, I've tried samples of both with a black backing, and honestly, I can't see much of a difference.

Seating distance 10' 8" - 11' depending on where your head's at.
Screen will be 10' wide 16:9 with horizontal bars to mask down to 10' wide scope, fixed frame premier.
Projector JVC X790R, stated 1900 lumens, with a throw distance of 18 feet.
Room is completely light controlled, on football Sundays we do put some light on to see food.
Room is black velvet at front, dark brown ceiling, black acoustic treatments on the side. Some medium gray on the side but that might change if I'm feeling ambitious.

I am leaning towards the XD to get enough ftL on the screen. However, with plans to keep rolling this PJ over until I'm 3000 laser lumens+, perhaps the UF would be more "future proof."

Thanks for any feedback.

Jon


----------



## drunkpenguin

I recently did the same test but also included the Silver Ticket Screen. I couldn't see a 1500 dollar difference so I'm going with the latter.


----------



## JonnyFive54950

JonnyFive54950 said:


> Hi All, been chatting with Jon about a Seymour screen for my application. We are between the XD and UF, I've tried samples of both with a black backing, and honestly, I can't see much of a difference.
> 
> Seating distance 10' 8" - 11' depending on where your head's at.
> Screen will be 10' wide 16:9 with horizontal bars to mask down to 10' wide scope, fixed frame premier.
> Projector JVC X790R, stated 1900 lumens, with a throw distance of 18 feet.
> Room is completely light controlled, on football Sundays we do put some light on to see food.
> Room is black velvet at front, dark brown ceiling, black acoustic treatments on the side. Some medium gray on the side but that might change if I'm feeling ambitious.
> 
> I am leaning towards the XD to get enough ftL on the screen. However, with plans to keep rolling this PJ over until I'm 3000 laser lumens+, perhaps the UF would be more "future proof."
> 
> Thanks for any feedback.
> 
> Jon



Anyone else have any input??


----------



## chriscmore

JonnyFive54950 said:


> Anyone else have any input??


I'd recommend the UF for that seating distance. Hitting spectral highlight specs is far less important than all the other aspects of image quality and I think long term you'd be happier with the UF.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## JonnyFive54950

chriscmore said:


> I'd recommend the UF for that seating distance. Hitting spectral highlight specs is far less important than all the other aspects of image quality and I think long term you'd be happier with the UF.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris



Chris, thank you for your input. Re-testing the XD material this past weekend, I did notice the weave on some bright scenes. Now that I see it, I probably can't unsee it. I agree, UF is the way to go. Thanks! -Jon


----------



## EC

JonnyFive54950 said:


> Seating distance 10' 8" - 11' depending on where your head's at.
> Screen will be 10' wide 16:9 with horizontal bars to mask down to 10' wide scope, fixed frame premier.
> Projector JVC X790R, stated 1900 lumens, with a throw distance of 18 feet.
> Room is completely light controlled,
> Room is black velvet at front, dark brown ceiling, black acoustic treatments on the side. Some medium gray on the side but that might change if I'm feeling ambitious.


My setup is very close to yours my first row distance is the same as yours. JVC RS540U is 15' back and my room is a cave, all black ceiling, walls and floor and I have black velvet on the sides of the screen and first 5' out from the ceiling. I have dark gray / black auralex acoustic treatments along the side walls. I went with the UF based on Chris Seymour's recommendation in an earlier post. I didn't compare samples but his expertise was good enough for me. I am quite happy with the UF material both in terms of video and audio. I still haven't used the masking panels that I bought with the screen.


----------



## elee532

So, I built my own 135” fixed frame screen with the XD98 material. I got it hung, but there are several big wrinkles. Any advice for getting rid of the wrinkles? Thanks!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

elee532 said:


> So, I built my own 135” fixed frame screen with the XD98 material. I got it hung, but there are several big wrinkles. Any advice for getting rid of the wrinkles? Thanks!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I'd need to see a pic to see if it's due to frame sag or what. Generally, once the frame is stable, the methodology is to start in the centers and tension toward the corners. The XD can take however much tension you want to give, but I'd not recommend doing things like forcing it around the frame edges. You can cause more headache that way.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## elee532

chriscmore said:


> I'd need to see a pic to see if it's due to frame sag or what. Generally, once the frame is stable, the methodology is to start in the centers and tension toward the corners. The XD can take however much tension you want to give, but I'd not recommend doing things like forcing it around the frame edges. You can cause more headache that way.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Do these pictures help Chris? Thanks!





























Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

The left side looks like you're not hanging your wood frame from the middle, but rather from the sides. If so, moving the mount closer to center will increase tension to fight the "V" pattern. If not, then I'd simply unfasten it along the left and retension more, pulling toward the lower left hand corner. The lower right pattern indicates too much corner tension, or at least not balanced with the side and bottom.

It may be more than a simple tweak in a couple specific locations. You may need to remove all but the right 2/3 of the top and the upper 2/3 of the right side, and then work both sides down to the lower left hand corner.

I assume you're stapling this, which can work well. It's simple and can be redone in patches fairly easily. This is a benefit to our installing grommets for o-rings, however, as the tensions are always then balanced out like a trampoline.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## elee532

You are correct. Mounting brackets are on the sides. Moving to the middle would be pretty straightforward.

I actually built the screen using the DIYFixedFrameGallo.pdf directions. The screen was originally attached using screen rail and spline. There was a small wrinkle in one of the corners. I couldn’t get rid of it, so I thought stapling the screen instead might work better. Instead, I made it much worse. 🤪


----------



## DavidK442

elee532 said:


> You are correct. Mounting brackets are on the sides. Moving to the middle would be pretty straightforward.
> 
> I actually built the screen using the DIYFixedFrameGallo.pdf directions. The screen was originally attached using screen rail and spline. There was a small wrinkle in one of the corners. I couldn’t get rid of it, so I thought stapling the screen instead might work better. Instead, I made it much worse. 🤪


I see the screen instructions do not include vertical braces 1/3 in from each side.
Depending on the frame material, you might experience slight warping of the top and bottom rails under tension which would certainly cause wrinkles.
If you have not already, I would add the braces, especially considering your screen is a 135" compared to the demo screens 110".


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I agree with David - I always add braces - two a third in for scope screens if the speakers are behind. That should prevent any bowing due to tension with a stretched screen material. At least a single centre brace for non AT, maybe more if the screen is quite wide compared to the size of timber being used.


----------



## sirjaymz

*What I have..*
SeymourAV CenterStage XD 120" wide (130.4 diag) Acoustical Transparent Precision Screen.
F120 XS 


*Issue #1* 
Screen Material missing 2 metal grommets upon opening box.


*Resolution pending... *
Seymour has requested for me to send the screen material back, they will fix, and re-send it back to me.. I have requested they send me a new screen first.. and then I will send defective unit back to them. Waiting to hear answer.

*Issue #2* 
Noticed significant bow in bottom rail of screen, after only being hung up for 1 week. 

Question. Is there suppose to be a top to bottom support bar?
Question. Is there suppose to be some sort of clip to secure the bottom of the metal frame to the wall?
Question. If you experienced this bowing, what was your resolution?

Pictures attached for easy of reference.


----------



## deauxt

I'm interested in either the XD or UF material in the Premier frame. I'm going to CEDIA this year, and Seymour Screen Excellence is listed as an exhibitor. Are there any products from that side of the company that I can view in person which would be comparable to either XD or UF? Or is SeymourAV going to be there as well?


----------



## Tom Bley

sirjaymz said:


> *What I have..*
> SeymourAV CenterStage XD 120" wide (130.4 diag) Acoustical Transparent Precision Screen.
> F120 XS
> 
> 
> *Issue #1*
> Screen Material missing 2 metal grommets upon opening box.
> 
> 
> *Resolution pending... *
> Seymour has requested for me to send the screen material back, they will fix, and re-send it back to me.. I have requested they send me a new screen first.. and then I will send defective unit back to them. Waiting to hear answer.
> 
> *Issue #2*
> Noticed significant bow in bottom rail of screen, after only being hung up for 1 week.
> 
> Question. Is there suppose to be a top to bottom support bar?
> Question. Is there suppose to be some sort of clip to secure the bottom of the metal frame to the wall?
> Question. If you experienced this bowing, what was your resolution?
> 
> Pictures attached for easy of reference.


Edit: I just looked at the pics now that I'm home and on a bigger screen, I see you bought the Precision frame and not the Premier frame. I see the precision frame is split it the width and the frame width is narrower. I'm going to get the premier frame to avoid the issues your having. Still no excuse about the missing grommets, that should have been caught before it was packaged. How do you like the XD material?


----------



## drunkpenguin

Geez, I almost bought one of these screens. Glad I went another route.


----------



## deauxt

Yeah, I'm interested to find out more about this frame bowing issue as well.


(I just noticed Tom's edit. Perhaps this is just an issue with the 2-piece frame?)

@sirjaymz Hopefully they'll take care of this for you. Everything I've seen up to now points to them being a solid company to deal with.


----------



## sirjaymz

Tom Bley said:


> Edit: I just looked at the pics now that I'm home and on a bigger screen, I see you bought the Precision frame and not the Premier frame. I see the precision frame is split it the width and the frame width is narrower. I'm going to get the premier frame to avoid the issues your having. Still no excuse about the missing grommets, that should have been caught before it was packaged. How do you like the XD material?



Yeah, I went with Precision frame, only based on cost and it was narrower. I could have fit the wider one, but figured, if it supports it just as well, why not save a few bucks and put that towards the new amp and subs. That decision is looking to be regretful.


As far as the screen material, if you are 8 feet or closer, definitely see the grain and can distinguish individual strands.. outside that distance, pretty difficult to tell. I'm sitting at 141", or right there abouts, and really can't tell with my preliminary measurements and views. Once I get the chairs in, I don't think there should be a problem.


Definitely Acoustically Transparent. If you look at my signature and head over to HT2.0, you'll see my setup, and seems pretty crystal clear to me, before and after the screen was put up.
I am pleased with the material at this point, but won't really be able to tell until PJ is in house and I really take a look. TBD.


----------



## sirjaymz

deauxt said:


> Yeah, I'm interested to find out more about this frame bowing issue as well.
> 
> 
> (I just noticed Tom's edit. Perhaps this is just an issue with the 2-piece frame?)
> 
> @*sirjaymz* Hopefully they'll take care of this for you. Everything I've seen up to now points to them being a solid company to deal with.





We will see. I have a conversation with them now in email going. I should have some additional info tomorrow.


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Jaymz -

The two grommets you mention are actually half there - the inner piece is there but not the back side to make the sandwich. So, the reinforcement is still there, but as I'm sure Jon and/ or Jenna will take care of you to either get it fixed - a three minute job - or replaced. Especially being in the last wrap when rolled up like that, I'm not sure why that wasn't obvious and caught. This is a new one for me and one that should have been an easy to avoid.

It might make sense for you to live with the XD for a couple weeks first to make sure you're happy with it and not instead wishing you'd got the UF. You're at a fine seating distance for the XD, but it'd be better to save you/us another swap if you end up wanting to change it soon anyway.

The frame splices can be biased inward or outward when you first splice them to compensate for whatever tension or gravity is doing. Your frame gets the two top supports, which can be mounted inner or outer depending on the situation, and one bottom 6" wide support. Some folks use it to pin a floating corner against the wall. Others use it to pull any pincushioning out of the frame like you're seeing. While it's the same French cleat as found on top, you'll have to pull it over the cleat to get it set. Some folks have opted to put a little piece of wood instead since it's not beveled like our cleats are. Regardless, it's an easy fix.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

deauxt said:


> I'm interested in either the XD or UF material in the Premier frame. I'm going to CEDIA this year, and Seymour Screen Excellence is listed as an exhibitor. Are there any products from that side of the company that I can view in person which would be comparable to either XD or UF? Or is SeymourAV going to be there as well?


We're only showing the Seymour-Screen Excellence line, as it's the brand that's built for the CEDIA channels. The Seymour AV are products designed to be more DIY friendly and priced to support the direct path from manufacturer to consumer. The S-SE line has margin for dealers, advertising, sales reps, PR, reviews in magazines, retail demo screens, trade shows, travelling, etc.

We'll be in Sound Room 4, with a similar 7.2.4 system that won Best of CEDIA last year. We'll have the audio provided by Audio Excellence (unrelated to me, for the record) and Acurus. The screen material will be the Enlightor-Neo and we'll be showing off a few new things mostly outside the room. As for the projector, we're planning on a new Wolf Cinema 4K / laser phosphor at an aggressive price point but we may display two inside the room, too. We'll see. Sometimes how the demos go together affect the kit we want to show off.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## J.P

chriscmore said:


> we'll be showing off a few new things mostly outside the room.


Hi, will you present new screen material at Cedia ? I really like the XD screen/material, do you think you will ever come out with a new vinyl product or maybe an upgraded XD screen ?


----------



## chriscmore

J.P said:


> Hi, will you present new screen material at Cedia ? I really like the XD screen/material, do you think you will ever come out with a new vinyl product or maybe an upgraded XD screen ?


Hi JP - 

The two new screen materials are: 

1) Ambient-Visionaire Black 0.9 This is a wide-angle material that is available in larger sizes. The reason you'd want lower gain in a larger-available screen is counter-intuitive. You'd think that the larger the screen, the more gain you'd want to get the brightness back up. All things equal, that's true, which is why the XD is used primarily for larger screens versus the ultrafine, lower gain screens like the UF and Neo. But with ambient light rejecting materials, the gain layer is actually quite high and angles of reflection come into play. The larger the screen, the more the screen benefits from wider angles, which improves uniformity and throw distance recommendations. The wider the angle, though, the lower the gain.

2) Radiant Gray 0.8 (perfectly smooth) This was developed to be a perfectly smooth, Lambertian surface with a theoretical 36% rejection to room splash contamination. It's not ALR per se, but also doesn't have any ALR aspects to the image which purists don't like. We removed the embossing step that gave the previous gray screens a textured look and will show this off with a UST projector in show lighting.

Both materials will be available through the Seymour AV line. At some point any or all may become microperfed, as grim as that prospect is for me personally.

I don't know in what direction the XD could be improved. Its gain is maxed, as it already has as much of the artificial pearl powder reflective additive that the pvc can handle. Doping anything more reflective into it would make it a sparkly mess. Its AT is maxed for any known weave pattern for pvc-coated thread materials. We could make its size up around 127" wide on the roll, but the installations where we're hitting those sizes always have the projection horsepower to handle our uncoated fabrics up to 242" high. With a healthy lumen budget, having a lower gain screen can be a benefit. Anyway, that's one direction I could go if demand warranted.

As for reducing its texture, that's why the UF was developed.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## StevenC56

chriscmore said:


> Hi JP -
> 
> The two new screen materials are:
> 
> 1) Ambient-Visionaire Black 0.9 This is a wide-angle material that is available in larger sizes. The reason you'd want lower gain in a larger-available screen is counter-intuitive. You'd think that the larger the screen, the more gain you'd want to get the brightness back up. All things equal, that's true, which is why the XD is used primarily for larger screens versus the ultrafine, lower gain screens like the UF and Neo. But with ambient light rejecting materials, the gain layer is actually quite high and angles of reflection come into play. The larger the screen, the more the screen benefits from wider angles, which improves uniformity and throw distance recommendations. The wider the angle, though, the lower the gain.
> 
> 2) Radiant Gray 0.8 (perfectly smooth) This was developed to be a perfectly smooth, Lambertian surface with a theoretical 36% rejection to room splash contamination. It's not ALR per se, but also doesn't have any ALR aspects to the image which purists don't like. We removed the embossing step that gave the previous gray screens a textured look and will show this off with a UST projector in show lighting.
> 
> Both materials will be available through the Seymour AV line. At some point any or all may become microperfed, as grim as that prospect is for me personally.
> 
> I don't know in what direction the XD could be improved. Its gain is maxed, as it already has as much of the artificial pearl powder reflective additive that the pvc can handle. Doping anything more reflective into it would make it a sparkly mess. Its AT is maxed for any known weave pattern for pvc-coated thread materials. We could make its size up around 127" wide on the roll, but the installations where we're hitting those sizes always have the projection horsepower to handle our uncoated fabrics up to 242" high. With a healthy lumen budget, having a lower gain screen can be a benefit. Anyway, that's one direction I could go if demand warranted.
> 
> As for reducing its texture, that's why the UF was developed.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris



Hey Chris!

Any headway on retrofit masking solutions for your retractable scope screens?


----------



## Ericglo

chriscmore said:


> Hi JP -
> 
> The two new screen materials are:
> 
> 1) Ambient-Visionaire Black 0.9 This is a wide-angle material that is available in larger sizes. The reason you'd want lower gain in a larger-available screen is counter-intuitive. You'd think that the larger the screen, the more gain you'd want to get the brightness back up. All things equal, that's true, which is why the XD is used primarily for larger screens versus the ultrafine, lower gain screens like the UF and Neo. But with ambient light rejecting materials, the gain layer is actually quite high and angles of reflection come into play. The larger the screen, the more the screen benefits from wider angles, which improves uniformity and throw distance recommendations. The wider the angle, though, the lower the gain.
> 
> 2) Radiant Gray 0.8 (perfectly smooth) This was developed to be a perfectly smooth, Lambertian surface with a theoretical 36% rejection to room splash contamination. It's not ALR per se, but also doesn't have any ALR aspects to the image which purists don't like. We removed the embossing step that gave the previous gray screens a textured look and will show this off with a UST projector in show lighting.


Looking forward to seeing them.



> Both materials will be available through the Seymour AV line. At some point any or all may become microperfed, as grim as that prospect is for me personally.



LOL!

I will never get the image out of my mind of the Stewart rep at Cedia '10 saying "but if you stand back far enough then you won't see the perf."


----------



## chriscmore

StevenC56 said:


> Hey Chris!
> 
> Any headway on retrofit masking solutions for your retractable scope screens?


It should go on next year's plan. The new retractable non-AT design has kicked my butt this year, but I should have time to work on its casing this fall.

What's the max you'd like to see added to the bottom of the case?

Chris


----------



## StevenC56

chriscmore said:


> It should go on next year's plan. The new retractable non-AT design has kicked my butt this year, but I should have time to work on its casing this fall.
> 
> What's the max you'd like to see added to the bottom of the case?
> 
> Chris


My screen has a 12 inch drop, so that shouldn't be an issue. I would like to have them black with velvet like my screen housing to match. Here's some pics of my screen and mounting. If you need anything else please let me know.


----------



## sirjaymz

@chriscmore
I would like to express my appreciation to the SeymourAV Team in resolving my issues with the screen I purchased.
Your companies commitment to excellence is of the highest quality when everyone is on the same page; and I really do appreciate those efforts.
The replacement screen arrived this past Saturday, 8-18 and within 30 minutes, we were able to get it stretched and hung into place.


Please pass along my gratitude to Jon and Dan for there efforts.


As far as the pincushioning, we were able to come up with a simple block of wood on the bottom, on the inside edge of the frame that provided the necessary stopping point for the frame, to counteract and tension caused by the bands onto the frame. This worked absolutely flawlessly. 



Again, Thank You to the SeymourAV Team for the excellence in Customer Service!


----------



## bkeeler10

Just ordered a 110" 2.35 retractable on Friday. Looking forward to its arrival in a few weeks.

We are wrapping up an addition to our house, which includes a dedicated theater/music space. Can't wait to get it set up!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## neverwhere

Can a Seymour Screen Excellence Trim motorized masking system, or any manufacturer's motorized masking, be set up such that the masking automatically adjusts according to the aspect ratio being displayed?

Not only would this be useful when changing from playing a 16:9 movie to a 2.40:1 movie, but would be especially useful when playing a changing/multi aspect ratio movie like The Dark Knight.


----------



## neverwhere

chriscmore said:


> We're only showing the Seymour-Screen Excellence line


Chris,

Regarding the Trim screen with motorized masking:

1) How long should the motor last? What is the cost to replace the motor?
2) If the motor dies, can the masking be moved manually?
3) How accurate are the stop positions? That is, will the masking lose the ability to stop at the set positions over time and need to be reset every so often?
4) If the masking is all velvet (instead of partly millibel), will the velvet on the masking wear down over time due to moving in and out of the roller?
5) Will the horizontal bars holding the masking ever sag with age, thereby creating ripples in the velvet of the masking?
6) Can different remote receiver types be combined (e.g., ir plus ip control) or can only one be chosen?

Thank you. I am just looking at what to expect if I go with the motorized masking versus the manual panel option.

Also, does the NEO screen material retain polarization?


----------



## elvinps2626

Hey guys 

This is my first time owing a projector so bare with me please. I already have the Epson 10500 projector it has like 8-9 memory Lens set ups so I will be fine in getting either or. I’m planing on getting Either a 130 in image wide screen or a 140 in image wide screen. I only have pdf pictures of the 140 in so that is what I’m uploading here. 

For those that have Constant Area screen with Manuel masking does it get tiresome for a while will changing for 16:9 to 2.4 aspect ratio ? I ask because my theater use will be for both movie watching and watching NBA basketball games and blue ray concerts and YouTube videos. 

Those that have the Proscenium 2 way electronic masking system with a CIH set up do you ever wished that you went with a COnstant Area set up so you have a taller 16:9 image ?

To calculate seating distance what formula do you use ? Is this formula the same for Constant Area screens or CIH screens ?

Thank in advance 


















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

If you find the 16:9 image in a CIH set up is too small, it usually means you're sitting too far back. If you ensure the 16:9 image within the CIH screen is as large as you are comfortable with from where you place the seats, scope is the same height but wider and more immersive, just as designed and intended.

Have you thought about a CIH+IMAX setup? This is where you install a large 16:9 screen but semi permanently mask it to 2.40 and watch everything CIH. When you watch an aspect changing movie, you remove the top and bottom masking so you get to see the height changes. That way you preserve the aspect ratio relationships between all formats - movies shot 'flat' are the same height as scope and less wide - they aren't supposed to be seen the same size as IMAX for example which should be wider and taller.

I'm running an LS10000 with an anamorphic lens on a 16:9 screen that is set up for CIH+IMAX. I sit at 2 x the screen height back for CIH and never feel 1.85 is too small. With my first set up when I had a 16:9 screen, I always felt disappointed with scope movies that were smaller with the black bars - that's not how I saw them in the cinema.

How close you sit is important, so experiment with seating distances and screen sizes to see what works best for you. A good rule of thumb for CIH is to sit back as far as the screen is wide - so if the screen is 10ft wide, sit 10ft back (eyes to screen). This coincides very closely to THXs recommendations for a 52 degree horizontal viewing angle for scope, and 40 degrees for 16:9 when viewed from the same seat. Also make sure the vertical viewing angle is no more than 15 degrees from eyes to the top of the screen for 1.85 and scope - IMAX can exceed that as you will rarely be required to look up beyond the usual scope image area. .

Sitting closer or further back is fine too, you just have to find what works best for you.

I'm running in low laser on an 8.7ft wide screen with the iris at -7 (it's a little different to -7 on the 10500 IIRC), and I don't find the unmasked sides to be a distraction when watching 1.85 content. I could make up some masking like I had in my last theatre but it's not high on my priorities at the moment. My speakers are behind the screen which is AT which i think from my seating distance is important.


----------



## elvinps2626

Gary Lightfoot said:


> If you find the 16:9 image in a CIH set up is too small, it usually means you're sitting too far back. If you ensure the 16:9 image within the CIH screen is as large as you are comfortable with from where you place the seats, scope is the same height but wider and more immersive, just as designed and intended.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you thought about a CIH+IMAX setup? This is where you install a large 16:9 screen but semi permanently mask it to 2.40 and watch everything CIH. When you watch an aspect changing movie, you remove the top and bottom masking so you get to see the height changes. That way you preserve the aspect ratio relationships between all formats - movies shot 'flat' are the same height as scope and less wide - they aren't supposed to be seen the same size as IMAX for example which should be wider and taller.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm running an LS10000 with an anamorphic lens on a 16:9 screen that is set up for CIH+IMAX. I sit at 2 x the screen height back for CIH and never feel 1.85 is too small. With my first set up when I had a 16:9 screen, I always felt disappointed with scope movies that were smaller with the black bars - that's not how I saw them in the cinema.
> 
> 
> 
> How close you sit is important, so experiment with seating distances and screen sizes to see what works best for you. A good rule of thumb for CIH is to sit back as far as the screen is wide - so if the screen is 10ft wide, sit 10ft back (eyes to screen). This coincides very closely to THXs recommendations for a 52 degree horizontal viewing angle for scope, and 40 degrees for 16:9 when viewed from the same seat. Also make sure the vertical viewing angle is no more than 15 degrees from eyes to the top of the screen for 1.85 and scope - IMAX can exceed that as you will rarely be required to look up beyond the usual scope image area. .
> 
> 
> 
> Sitting closer or further back is fine too, you just have to find what works best for you.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm running in low laser on an 8.7ft wide screen with the iris at -7 (it's a little different to -7 on the 10500 IIRC), and I don't find the unmasked sides to be a distraction when watching 1.85 content. I could make up some masking like I had in my last theatre but it's not high on my priorities at the moment. My speakers are behind the screen which is AT which i think from my seating distance is important.




Gary 

Thanks for the reply this helps me a lot. I will research more on the subject of CIH+IMAX didn’t know that was a option. But since you say that I have to be seated at 2 X height of the screen and I won’t find flat movies or NBA games that small and scope movies fill the entire screen I think I’m leaning towards the automatic side masking system. Definitely don’t want a CIW set up. Right now with my 65 in tv I hate when a scope movies comes and it is supposed to be the widest and most immersive be the smallest image. 
Thanks for the Reply. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidK442

elvinps2626 said:


> Hey guys
> 
> This is my first time owing a projector so bare with me please. I already have the Epson 10500 projector it has like 8-9 memory Lens set ups so I will be fine in getting either or. I’m planing on getting Either a 130 in image wide screen or a 140 in image wide screen. I only have pdf pictures of the 140 in so that is what I’m uploading here.
> 
> For those that have Constant Area screen with Manuel masking does it get tiresome for a while will changing for 16:9 to 2.4 aspect ratio ? I ask because my theater use will be for both movie watching and watching NBA basketball games and blue ray concerts and YouTube videos.
> 
> Those that have the Proscenium 2 way electronic masking system with a CIH set up do you ever wished that you went with a COnstant Area set up so you have a taller 16:9 image ?
> 
> To calculate seating distance what formula do you use ? Is this formula the same for Constant Area screens or CIH screens ?
> 
> Thank in advance


I have been using a constant area 2.1 ratio screen for several years with no urge to return to a 1.85 or to try a 2.35 ratio.
The size of both standard HD and scope content seem appropriate to me. Yes, for the rare movie that has multiple aspect ratios you need to make a choice between shrinking everything a little, or overshooting the IMAX sequences a little bit. Not a big deal.
I believe Seymour makes custom screen ratios, but if not anything is possible with their DIY material.

As for your question, manual masking is still only on my "to do" list. Likely it will consist of a hinged panel to swing down from the ceiling for wide screen movies. No intention of masking for 16X9 because generally I am less critical when watching tv shows, cartoons, sports etc in that format.
When I adjust my projector to view scope material I always bring the image down to leave a wider single black bar at the top rather than having the image centered with black top and bottom.
(With the bottom of the screen at 25" off the floor lowering the image seems best.) I doubt dropping and raising a hinged masking panel will be a pain compared to manually adjusting my DLP projector each time.

Here is a link to the viewing distance calculator I like to use. Ignore the "recommended" distances and experiment on a blank wall to find what is right for you.
After years of experimentation I netted out 10' back from a screen that is 112" wide for a scope viewing angle of 50 degrees.
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

Good luck and have fun with the build.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

elvinps2626 said:


> Gary
> 
> Thanks for the reply this helps me a lot. I will research more on the subject of CIH+IMAX didn’t know that was a option.


It's not a set up that many people have utilised, as the aspect changing IMAX movies are a relatively new thing, and its just a small proportion of the movie is shot that way, so it's almost overkill for the amount of content that will be watched that way (for me so far, about one ACM a year). It does cover and present every format as intended though, if that's important to you. I don't think any aspect changing movies are presented that way in non IMAX theatres, where they're usually presented just as scope, and often that's how you get them on a Blu Ray disk, so most people only ever see them as scope. I believe that Avengers Infinity War is purely scope on the BD, despite being shot entirely in IMAX. I'll have to check to see if the 3D disk is scope or IMAX as I haven't looked, but it does seem odd to do that as it means only those people who went to an IMAX theatre will have seen it that way.



elvinps2626 said:


> But since you say that I have to be seated at 2 X height of the screen and I won’t find flat movies or NBA games that small and scope movies fill the entire screen I think I’m leaning towards the automatic side masking system. Definitely don’t want a CIW set up.


You don't have to sit as close as 2xSH, but the closer you sit the more immersive things are, and just be aware of the screen height (top of the image). Anything from 2 to 2.4xSH should be good to ensure 16:9 looks fine too. If the screen is 16:9 for IMAX presentations, then that becomes 1.5xSH (if the scope portion is viewed from 2xSH) which is similar to the back row of an IMAX theatre IIRC.



elvinps2626 said:


> Right now with my 65 in tv I hate when a scope movies comes and it is supposed to be the widest and most immersive be the smallest image.
> Thanks for the Reply.


I completely agree. Scope should be the widest most immersive and 'epic' format other than IMAX, so presenting them as the smallest with black bars does the format a disservice and is backwards to the intent. 16:9 is a tv format designed as a compromise. The only way to get scope to fit is to shrink it down.

If your seating distance is flexible, you should be able to have a screen at a size that you want and be sat at the optimal viewing distance.


----------



## elvinps2626

DavidK442 said:


> I have been using a constant area 2.1 ratio screen for several years with no urge to return to a 1.85 or to try a 2.35 ratio.
> 
> The size of both standard HD and scope content seem appropriate to me. Yes, for the rare movie that has multiple aspect ratios you need to make a choice between shrinking everything a little, or overshooting the IMAX sequences a little bit. Not a big deal.
> 
> I believe Seymour makes custom screen ratios, but if not anything is possible with their DIY material.
> 
> 
> 
> As for your question, manual masking is still only on my "to do" list. Likely it will consist of a hinged panel to swing down from the ceiling for wide screen movies. No intention of masking for 16X9 because generally I am less critical when watching tv shows, cartoons, sports etc in that format.
> 
> When I adjust my projector to view scope material I always bring the image down to leave a wider single black bar at the top rather than having the image centered with black top and bottom.
> 
> (With the bottom of the screen at 25" off the floor lowering the image seems best.) I doubt dropping and raising a hinged masking panel will be a pain compared to manually adjusting my DLP projector each time.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to the viewing distance calculator I like to use. Ignore the "recommended" distances and experiment on a blank wall to find what is right for you.
> 
> After years of experimentation I netted out 10' back from a screen that is 112" wide for a scope viewing angle of 50 degrees.
> 
> http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck and have fun with the build.




Thanks David 

That is another option I like that solution as well. I get in your situation not having masking for 16:9 content since you watch regular tv is not that important. But in my situation when my watching a basketball game or watching Blu-ray concerts I will usually have family or friends over and the lights will be dimmed so I will need masking for that. 
Thanks for the link I will check it out. Go idea I will buy a painters tape and see what I like. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elvinps2626

Gary Lightfoot said:


> It's not a set up that many people have utilised, as the aspect changing IMAX movies are a relatively new thing, and its just a small proportion of the movie is shot that way, so it's almost overkill for the amount of content that will be watched that way (for me so far, about one ACM a year). It does cover and present every format as intended though, if that's important to you. I don't think any aspect changing movies are presented that way in non IMAX theatres, where they're usually presented just as scope, and often that's how you get them on a Blu Ray disk, so most people only ever see them as scope. I believe that Avengers Infinity War is purely scope on the BD, despite being shot entirely in IMAX. I'll have to check to see if the 3D disk is scope or IMAX as I haven't looked, but it does seem odd to do that as it means only those people who went to an IMAX theatre will have seen it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to sit as close as 2xSH, but the closer you sit the more immersive things are, and just be aware of the screen height (top of the image). Anything from 2 to 2.4xSH should be good to ensure 16:9 looks fine too. If the screen is 16:9 for IMAX presentations, then that becomes 1.5xSH (if the scope portion is viewed from 2xSH) which is similar to the back row of an IMAX theatre IIRC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree. Scope should be the widest most immersive and 'epic' format other than IMAX, so presenting them as the smallest with black bars does the format a disservice and is backwards to the intent. 16:9 is a tv format designed as a compromise. The only way to get scope to fit is to shrink it down.
> 
> 
> 
> If your seating distance is flexible, you should be able to have a screen at a size that you want and be sat at the optimal viewing distance.




Hello Gary 

After searching Blu-ray.com I saw like 4 out of like 80 movies where in 1:85 (imax) aspect ratio. There where more if you went with 3D but since I don’t care much for 3D ( I don’t think that the Epson 10500 does 3D as well) I don’t mind that much. I think I’m going with the automatic 2 way masking. It does 1:78, 1:85, and 2.4 masking. So in that rare instance that I do find a 1:85 movie I will al least have it bigger than 1:78. The other option would’ve been a 4 way automatic masking system but I don’t have the money to pay for that much. I like the idea of the Constant Area set up but I’m to lazy and I know I will probably do it the first time then I will leave everything without the masking . 

I will probably sit 2x height of the image so when I put 16:9 content I will have a better viewing angle than if I seat further back. 
I will use a painters paint and see what viewing angle I’m most convertible when watching scope movies. 

Thanks for the wonderful information,
Elvin 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ericglo

Chris was showing off his new motorized screen frame. Once again, he has hit it out of the park. The Enlightor looks great as always.

As a quick aside, I was walking past Stewart at Cedia and something just looked off to me. Sure enough, I walked up to the screen and found it to be perfed. I like Stewart and own a Stewart screen, but for AT I don't think I could ever live with anything other than a top end weave like Seymours.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Stewart now produce a weave screen - I think after the SMPTE findings of a B chain investigation that weave screens have less negative impact on the audio compared to perf, so I would have thought they would have had the new material there instead of perf.


----------



## deauxt

Ericglo said:


> Chris was showing off his new motorized screen frame. Once again, he has hit it out of the park. The Enlightor looks great as always.
> 
> As a quick aside, I was walking past Stewart at Cedia and something just looked off to me. Sure enough, I walked up to the screen and found it to be perfed. I like Stewart and own a Stewart screen, but for AT I don't think I could ever live with anything other than a top end weave like Seymours.


I completely agree, his new motorized screen was _really_ nice. I saw their demo before we left Saturday morning and it was actually one of my favorite things at CEDIA...so much so that I'm trying to figure out a way to justify one vs the fixed screen with masking panels. It certainly isn't necessary and many might call it a superfluous purchase, but now I really want one. It was a very well built, solid screen, but it isn't cheap.


I wasn't impressed by Stewart's screen either.


----------



## deauxt

neverwhere said:


> Can a Seymour Screen Excellence Trim motorized masking system, or any manufacturer's motorized masking, be set up such that the masking automatically adjusts according to the aspect ratio being displayed?
> 
> Not only would this be useful when changing from playing a 16:9 movie to a 2.40:1 movie, but would be especially useful when playing a changing/multi aspect ratio movie like The Dark Knight.


Curious to know this as well.


----------



## Mahuzz13

Ericglo said:


> Chris was showing off his new motorized screen frame. Once again, he has hit it out of the park. The Enlightor looks great as always.
> 
> 
> 
> As a quick aside, I was walking past Stewart at Cedia and something just looked off to me. Sure enough, I walked up to the screen and found it to be perfed. I like Stewart and own a Stewart screen, but for AT I don't think I could ever live with anything other than a top end weave like Seymours.




Could I ask what is different or new about his motorized screen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ericglo

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Stewart now produce a weave screen - I think after the SMPTE findings of a B chain investigation that weave screens have less negative impact on the audio compared to perf, so I would have thought they would have had the new material there instead of perf.


I have heard about the new weave, but I didn't see it. They only had one screen/pj combo this year. 



deauxt said:


> I completely agree, his new motorized screen was _really_ nice. I saw their demo before we left Saturday morning and it was actually one of my favorite things at CEDIA...so much so that I'm trying to figure out a way to justify one vs the fixed screen with masking panels. It certainly isn't necessary and many might call it a superfluous purchase, but now I really want one. It was a very well built, solid screen, but it isn't cheap.
> 
> 
> I wasn't impressed by Stewart's screen either.


I do love the way the masking hugs the screen. It looks extremely professional.

I like Stewart screens, but I don't like the perf.



Mahuzz13 said:


> Could I ask what is different or new about his motorized screen?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am going to let Chris describe the system. I think he mentioned in a recent post.


----------



## chriscmore

neverwhere said:


> Chris,
> 
> Regarding the Trim screen with motorized masking:
> 
> 1) How long should the motor last? What is the cost to replace the motor?
> 2) If the motor dies, can the masking be moved manually?
> 3) How accurate are the stop positions? That is, will the masking lose the ability to stop at the set positions over time and need to be reset every so often?
> 4) If the masking is all velvet (instead of partly millibel), will the velvet on the masking wear down over time due to moving in and out of the roller?
> 5) Will the horizontal bars holding the masking ever sag with age, thereby creating ripples in the velvet of the masking?
> 6) Can different remote receiver types be combined (e.g., ir plus ip control) or can only one be chosen?
> 
> Thank you. I am just looking at what to expect if I go with the motorized masking versus the manual panel option.
> 
> Also, does the NEO screen material retain polarization?


Sorry for the CEDIA delay. I can barely fit in a video call to the family this time of year.

1) Estimated 20,000 cycles. We've not had a failure yet, but a new motor is about $100. Shipping will likely cost more than the repair.
2) No.
3) The inner and outer mechanical limits are accurate to about 1/16", which is within the overscan accuracy of any projection system. If you upgrade to a higher end electronics package that can program intermediate stops, we've found them similarly accurate, but from experience in our TAM screens, they may have to run a re-calibration sweep step someday. I seem to recall advising installs to do this only a couple times, but it makes sense that the controllers load map could settle in a little different after we've initially set it.
4) n/a. The leading edge is the velvet part and is not compressed. The AT portion is a more sheer version of our premium speaker grill material. Even Tony Grimani couldn't measure its attenuation when we used it at CES with him, but it's not quite as black as the grill we use in the TAM platform. The thinness is needed for the miniaturized Trim/Proscenium design.
5) No, as the loading forces are so low that accumulated stresses are zero.
6) There are three levels of control. The mid-level RP control box does dry contact, 12vDC, IR, RF, etc, very well by adding in peripherals. It can do RS232 also, but if you're using that we recommend stepping up to the higher end RQ control platform, as it's more sophisticated in software. With the RP or RQ, you can have both RS232 and IR. The only combo that doesn't work is if you connect a 12vDC input, as it can't also play with other input types. It forces it to "is there a voltage or not" status instead of waiting around for a command.

No white screens retain polarity, only silver screens. White by nature scatters, thereby wrecking polarization. If you needed polarity retention, I'd recommend our Ambient-Visionaire 2.1 in the S-SE line, or our Matinee Silver in the S-AV line.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

neverwhere said:


> Can a Seymour Screen Excellence Trim motorized masking system, or any manufacturer's motorized masking, be set up such that the masking automatically adjusts according to the aspect ratio being displayed?
> 
> Not only would this be useful when changing from playing a 16:9 movie to a 2.40:1 movie, but would be especially useful when playing a changing/multi aspect ratio movie like The Dark Knight.


Some projectors have a trigger output you can actuate a masking screen with. The Kaleidescape system and external scalers can do this, too. So, it can be done.

While useful for overall automation, they're not usually helpful in mixed ratio content because no one would want to endure the few seconds of mechanical movement during a show (masking screen, possible lens memory, zoom, shift, focus, etc). The fast way to do this is through a video scaler, as they can instantly resize the image. I've not heard of anyone actually doing this during the few mixed ratio films, though. On a CH screen, it would yield the opposite effect that Nolan was going for. The epic stuff would be shrunk into the middle of the screen and the calm parts blown up to full width. On a CW screen, the video wouldn't have to do anything. Masking of the screen only. I'd then turn off all lights and open the masks up and keep them open.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

elvinps2626 said:


> Hey guys
> 
> This is my first time owing a projector so bare with me please. I already have the Epson 10500 projector it has like 8-9 memory Lens set ups so I will be fine in getting either or. I’m planing on getting Either a 130 in image wide screen or a 140 in image wide screen. I only have pdf pictures of the 140 in so that is what I’m uploading here.
> 
> For those that have Constant Area screen with Manuel masking does it get tiresome for a while will changing for 16:9 to 2.4 aspect ratio ? I ask because my theater use will be for both movie watching and watching NBA basketball games and blue ray concerts and YouTube videos.
> 
> Those that have the Proscenium 2 way electronic masking system with a CIH set up do you ever wished that you went with a COnstant Area set up so you have a taller 16:9 image ?
> 
> To calculate seating distance what formula do you use ? Is this formula the same for Constant Area screens or CIH screens ?


Your masking numbers look correct.

As for whether or not the panels are tiresome, I'll defer to the users out there. Personally, constant area setups are my favorite, as it nullifies the whole aspect ratio issue and you can just sit back and enjoy.

As a tangent, I wish they'd release the IMAX content in the (down to) 1.4 film ratio. I'd make a floor to ceiling screen for that.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## deauxt

Great info...thanks, Chris.

My Dad and I enjoyed chatting with you Saturday at CEDIA. You have an awesome product, whether I go with the motorized masking or not, I'm looking forward to having one of your screens in my theater room in the near future.


----------



## chriscmore

Mahuzz13 said:


> Could I ask what is different or new about his motorized screen?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Trim (in the S-SE brand), or Proscenium (in the S-AV brand), is the least expensive motorized masking system available. Like everything else, it's still custom made here in Iowa. The removable velvet panels allow for easier replacement and I can ship the screen in a cardboard box instead of a massive wooden crate. This saves us like $1k in cost alone. The rest of the savings come from integrating all mechanics into one extrusion, limiting the platform to a size range, two way only, and shrinking some of the components.

It's for those that wish Carada's Masquerade system was still available, except ours can't just fit over existing screens.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## neverwhere

deauxt said:


> I completely agree, his new motorized screen was _really_ nice. I saw their demo before we left Saturday morning and it was actually one of my favorite things at CEDIA...so much so that I'm trying to figure out a way to justify one vs the fixed screen with masking panels. It certainly isn't necessary and many might call it a superfluous purchase, but now I really want one. It was a very well built, solid screen, but it isn't cheap.


I am having a tough time making this decision as well.

The reason that I would like a Seymour screen:

About a year ago, I obtained a bunch of screen samples to compare - both AT and non-AT as I was unsure which way I would go, depending how good the AT screens were.
I taped them to a wall (with black backing for those samples that did not have any) and projected test patterns using a Benq 1080 DLP.
Tested at a viewing distance of roughly 7 to 7.5 feet.

I basically looked for sharpness and any obvious anomalies relating to sharpness and shape of what was projected (e.g., do the small squares look square or are they rounded etc...).
The materials had different gains, so I did not compare other aspects like contrast, colour and so on.

Some of the AT materials I tested included Seymour Enlightor 4k, Seymour Neo, DreamScreen UltraWeave V6, Seymour XD, Seymour UF, Falcon Horizon, Severtson Sat-4k.
Some of the non-AT materials included Stewart Studiotek 100, Stewart Cima Neve, Da-Lite HD Progressive 1.1 and 0.9, Seymour Glacier White.

I had heard that DT Screens have a nice AT material as well, but I did not have a sample of this one.
EluneVision refused to send me any screen samples. Note that I paid to receive some samples, so payment was not an issue in my quest to obtain samples. 

Not surprisingly, the Studiotek 100 looked the best - very sharp.
The Da-Lite Progressives are very smooth, and while sharp, were not as sharp as the Stewart from viewing distance. 

The two best AT screen samples to my eyes were the Seymour Neo and the DreamScreen V6.
They looked fairly similar, but I slightly preferred the Neo. Up close to the screen, the difference was a little more noticeable with the Neo being slightly sharper. It is actually easier to see the "dot" or "dimple" in the middle of each pixel of the 1080p test pattern with the Neo.

The Neo is so good that it looked the same as the Da-Lite Progressive 0.9, which is a non-AT screen, from my viewing distance (again, only 7 to 7.5 feet).

Now, which frame to get to put this great screen material in?


----------



## Ericglo

FYI the DT screen is nice and I consider it up there with Enlightor and V6, but IIRC it is much more expensive than the other two.


----------



## neverwhere

Thank you for all of your answers Chris.



chriscmore said:


> 4) n/a. The leading edge is the velvet part and is not compressed. The AT portion is a more sheer version of our premium speaker grill material. Even Tony Grimani couldn't measure its attenuation when we used it at CES with him, but it's not quite as black as the grill we use in the TAM platform. The thinness is needed for the miniaturized Trim/Proscenium design.


It sounds like this motorized masking is not available in full velvet, but only with the AT material.

I believe that the manual masking panels for the Series 3 frame have the option of being full velvet.
Is this correct?




chriscmore said:


> No white screens retain polarity, only silver screens. White by nature scatters, thereby wrecking polarization. If you needed polarity retention, I'd recommend our Ambient-Visionaire 2.1 in the S-SE line, or our Matinee Silver in the S-AV line.


No, I don't think that I need retention.
I would like a JVC projector, and from what I understand, no retention is preferred with 3D when using a JVC as this allows more options as to which 3D glasses can be used.


----------



## chriscmore

neverwhere said:


> Thank you for all of your answers Chris.
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like this motorized masking is not available in full velvet, but only with the AT material.
> 
> I believe that the manual masking panels for the Series 3 frame have the option of being full velvet.
> Is this correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think that I need retention.
> I would like a JVC projector, and from what I understand, no retention is preferred with 3D when using a JVC as this allows more options as to which 3D glasses can be used.


Correct, I can't roll up velvet very much as it's very thick. I do have a light weight velvet I could try, but I'd need the larger size TAM platform for the additional roll-up space.

You can get magnetic panels in the Fidelio velvet no problem.

The JVC, and every other consumer system, uses active 3D glasses and will work with any screen type. Only dual-projector passive systems need polarity retention and are thankfully rare.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## neverwhere

Ericglo said:


> FYI the DT screen is nice and I consider it up there with Enlightor and V6, but IIRC it is much more expensive than the other two.


Yeah. I think the price of the DT screen system is main reason that I did not officially request a sample.
From what I remember, the DT AT material was only available with their power masking screen system and not available in a frame with manual masking panels.
At least, that is how it was at the time in 2017. Not sure about now.
Basically, there was not a lower priced, manual masking screen option, and as I was unlikely to pay the price of their power masking option, I decided it was not fair to ask for the screen sample (even though I would have liked to see it and compare with the others).

As for EluneVision, I was really turned off from their products after they refused to send a screen sample.
I have a feeling that it would not be as nice as some of the others, but I still would have liked to give them a chance and compare with my own eyes.
I can't help but think that not providing screen samples would hurt their business a little. I for one would never buy a screen without seeing it in person beforehand. Disregarding the lack of sample, they couldn't even tell me where to go to see one in person at a dealer location.

I am looking forward to getting my Seymour Screen Excellence product. Hopefully I can make a decision relatively soon on which one to go with.


----------



## chriscmore

neverwhere said:


> As for EluneVision, I was really turned off from their products after they refused to send a screen sample.
> I have a feeling that it would not be as nice as some of the others, but I still would have liked to give them a chance and compare with my own eyes.
> I can't help but think that not providing screen samples would hurt their business a little. I for one would never buy a screen without seeing it in person beforehand. Disregarding the lack of sample, they couldn't even tell me where to go to see one in person at a dealer location.
> 
> I am looking forward to getting my Seymour Screen Excellence product. Hopefully I can make a decision relatively soon on which one to go with.


EluneVision readily asks for free screen samples from us, which we fulfilled. They *might* let you pay for a sample from them, which we did. In testing, it's a coated pvc thread that's more comparable to the Center Stage XD. It's excellent acoustically transparent, but a coarse texture, dim and off color.

The ultra-fine weaves (uncoated threads) in the industry are DT, DreamScreens/ScreenAcoustics from our friendcompetitor AV Science, and from us the Enlightor-Neo and Center Stage UF.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## neverwhere

chriscmore said:


> EluneVision readily asks for free screen samples from us, which we fulfilled. They *might* let you pay for a sample from them


I gave them the chance last year, and I am no longer interested (I know which company I am going with.). 




chriscmore said:


> EluneVision ... In testing, it's a coated pvc thread that's more comparable to the Center Stage XD. It's excellent acoustically transparent, but a coarse texture, dim and off color.


Thanks for the description of that screen. It sounds like I did not miss out in seeing it in person.

A couple more questions regarding the Seymour Screen Excellence manual horizontal panels for masking a 16:9 screen down to 2.4:1:
Have they ever been made as one piece for the top and one piece for the bottom, instead of 2 pieces for top and 2 pieces for bottom?

This might be more user friendly in that it would take less time to attach/detach. Sure, storing smaller panels would be easier, but I have no intention of really storing them. When they are not in use, the panels will just sit by my screen until needed so that they are ready to go. I would rather put on two panels instead of four.

As I will likely get an 80" wide 16:9 screen, will I have the option of getting two masking panels (one for top and one for bottom) rather than four?


----------



## chriscmore

For the top/bottom masking panels, the default configuration is to split them in half. For most film screen sizes, say 110-130" wide, they are quite large and swinging a 130" wide panel is by default not desirable. We've done a few, in fact I think we did some monster 180" wide single panel, so we can do them as one piece on request. For the relatively small 80" wide size, it'd make more sense.

At your size, make sure you evaluate what screen material. For that small, the S-SE line's Enlightor-Neo would be best if you can swing it. Normally I can pretty quickly recommend Seymour AV's Center Stage UF to the forums, but at 80"w the zero to 6ft viewing benefit of the Neo would become more proportionally worthwhile.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Check out this Home Theater of the Month. Another great build: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-d...th-coldwater-creek-cinema-2.html#post56794362

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## elvinps2626

chriscmore said:


> Your masking numbers look correct.
> 
> 
> 
> As for whether or not the panels are tiresome, I'll defer to the users out there. Personally, constant area setups are my favorite, as it nullifies the whole aspect ratio issue and you can just sit back and enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> As a tangent, I wish they'd release the IMAX content in the (down to) 1.4 film ratio. I'd make a floor to ceiling screen for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Thanks Chris 

Thank for the reply I will ponder wether or not the Manual masking will be bothersome for me. Thanks, 
Elvin 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JonnyFive54950

elvinps2626 said:


> Thanks Chris
> 
> Thank for the reply I will ponder wether or not the Manual masking will be bothersome for me. Thanks,
> Elvin
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I'm planning on manual masking for 1) cost and 2) this probably isn't the last screen I'll buy. I'm planning on a 10' 16:9 with horizontal bars to mask down for movies. I only watch 1-2 movies a week, so I don't think that will be too laborious.


----------



## cgott42

I have the seymourav center stage motorized screen , I have no idea why after being set for so long but the screen no longer comes down all of the way *about 6 inches shy*, and when it pulls the screen up it makes the motorized sound after the screen is fully up. I see the 2 adjustment screws (one above the other), with plus and minus directions. Which screw should i turn which way?


----------



## chriscmore

cgott42 said:


> I have the seymourav center stage motorized screen , I have no idea why after being set for so long but the screen no longer comes down all of the way *about 6 inches shy*, and when it pulls the screen up it makes the motorized sound after the screen is fully up. I see the 2 adjustment screws (one above the other), with plus and minus directions. Which screw should i turn which way?


Look up in the crown of the motor's head for those two screws you mention. One corresponds to the roller going up (upper limits), one going down (lower limits). Lower the screen somewhere in the middle and hit stop. For the lower limit screw, rotate it a full turn or so in the "+" direction, which will expand the limits. Actuate the screen down to see if that has lowered the lower limit or not. If so, repeat as necessary.

The upper limits sounds like it might need changing, depending on what the mechanical sound is you're hearing. When it's up all the way, is the bar really tight up in the roll-up, or does it have a little bit of free wiggle left in it? If it's tight, I want you to adjust the upper limit screw in the "-" direction a turn or so. The goal is to get it high enough to be retracted visually but still have a 1/2" or so of wiggle left in it. We don't want the motor to strain.

Let me know how that works and we'll proceed accordingly.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## cgott42

chriscmore said:


> Look up in the crown of the motor's head for those two screws you mention. One corresponds to the roller going up (upper limits), one going down (lower limits). Lower the screen somewhere in the middle and hit stop. For the lower limit screw, rotate it a full turn or so in the "+" direction, which will expand the limits. Actuate the screen down to see if that has lowered the lower limit or not. If so, repeat as necessary.
> 
> The upper limits sounds like it might need changing, depending on what the mechanical sound is you're hearing. When it's up all the way, is the bar really tight up in the roll-up, or does it have a little bit of free wiggle left in it? If it's tight, I want you to adjust the upper limit screw in the "-" direction a turn or so. The goal is to get it high enough to be retracted visually but still have a 1/2" or so of wiggle left in it. We don't want the motor to strain.
> 
> Let me know how that works and we'll proceed accordingly.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Yep, that did it, thanks!
One Q - the bottom screw - was REALLY hard to access - since it wasn't angled in the direction of the opening of the screen enclosure - is there a way to adjust that?


----------



## chriscmore

The adjustment pieces are flexy plastic for that reason. It'll hit, but you may need to put a little curve into it first. We try not to drill extra holes in the case unless we really have to.

Chris


----------



## cgott42

k, thx


----------



## chriscmore

I don't see that this video overview of the Trim was posted, so here is the link: 




Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Check out Jeff's home theater, which was selected for AV Science Home Theater of the Month just before Scott Wilkinson left AVS. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2909604-jmax-theatre.html 

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Ladeback

chriscmore said:


> Check out Jeff's home theater, which was selected for AV Science Home Theater of the Month just before Scott Wilkinson left AVS. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2909604-jmax-theatre.html
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Is that why there has not been a Home Theater of the Month for October? I couldn't find one and didn't know Scott left.


----------



## Ericglo

I don't want to get this off track, but Scott was let go right before Cedia.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

That's a shame, I used to quite enjoy those video's Scott hosted. I heard they had stopped but I didn't know they had let him go too.


----------



## bigbadbob

Any Black Friday deals coming up at Seymour???? Just hoping...


----------



## chriscmore

We've never done promotions through the Seymour AV line, as everything is priced consumer direct and we don't keep inventory. I may have the occasional B-stock item around though. I'm due to refresh the list, so I'll ask Dan what screens need to be rehomed.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## LookN2Find

Are there any threads on other specific model screens by Seymour, or can all questions about all models be asked here?


----------



## KCWolfPck

Hello!

I am considering a Seymour AV Fixed Frame screen for my theater build.

Projector will likely be an Epson 5040UB (or upcoming release equivalent)
Seating distance will be 12" in a basement (light controlled).
I do not need an acoustically transparent screen.

I am leaning toward a 2.35:1 screen with a diagonal of around 150". 

It looks like the model number I am after is the F140.

Given the information above, is the Glacier White screen material optimal for my room?

Also one concern....given that the Premier frames are only 4 pieces, I am worried about getting a 140" long piece into my basement. I only have an egress window and the angle isn't sufficient to fit. The stairs to the basement bi-level (see photo with dimensions).

Do you think I could get the 140" horizontal pieces down there, or do I need to go with the Precision frame (which would require me to go with a smaller screen size)?

Thanks!


----------



## chriscmore

LookN2Find said:


> Are there any threads on other specific model screens by Seymour, or can all questions about all models be asked here?


This is the place to ask. Fortunately everything is fitting into one thread.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

KCWolfPck said:


> Hello!
> 
> I am considering a Seymour AV Fixed Frame screen for my theater build.
> 
> Projector will likely be an Epson 5040UB (or upcoming release equivalent)
> Seating distance will be 12" in a basement (light controlled).
> I do not need an acoustically transparent screen.
> 
> I am leaning toward a 2.35:1 screen with a diagonal of around 150".
> 
> It looks like the model number I am after is the F140.
> 
> Given the information above, is the Glacier White screen material optimal for my room?
> 
> Also one concern....given that the Premier frames are only 4 pieces, I am worried about getting a 140" long piece into my basement. I only have an egress window and the angle isn't sufficient to fit. The stairs to the basement bi-level (see photo with dimensions).
> 
> Do you think I could get the 140" horizontal pieces down there, or do I need to go with the Precision frame (which would require me to go with a smaller screen size)?
> 
> Thanks!


It's hard to tell from your drawing if you have vertical clearances or not. If you can find or make a 12' long 2x4, you can quickly see if it's possible or not. If not, or if you'd simply prefer, we can section the top and bottom. The splices are very strong, as there are two channels for splice bars, so you'd have 4x total. We do this on really large screens shipping overseas, or if the image widths exceed ~210" wide.

I would go with the Glacier White in this case. I'd also recommend you darken as much as possible all of the surfaces. It doesn't have to be a batcave, but anything darker helps.

Finally, since every screen is custom ordered, feel free to make it as custom as you like to the 0.1" resolution. For example, for a non-AT screen we often recommend 2.4 ratio instead of the standard 2.35. The modern scope films are in 2.39-2.40, and while we're only talking around an inch of height, if it helps clear the speakers underneath it can be helpful.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## LookN2Find

chriscmore said:


> This is the place to ask. Fortunately everything is fitting into one thread.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


👌🏼 Excellent. I have a few questions concerning the Glacier White screen material. I've read that the coatings that go into screens to add gain begin to cause artifacts and shimmer as they get above 1.3, and that even some 1.3 gain material shows shimmering.

My question is, is the 1.3 gain a perfectly smooth surface with perfect uniformity, no sparkles or shimmering (and I can't remember the term for the image being perfectly lit from edge to edge) with a very wide half angle, no hotspotting etc? Is there such a thing as a better or worse white screen at the same gain, and why? I'm looking for the very best screen I can find, as I am very big in PQ, have an issue with any artifacts/shimmering/sparkles, want the smoothest surface I can find with a gurantee of no hotspotting etc.

I was originally going with a DNP Supernova after finding out the 0.8 gain ALR material has no shimmer or sparkles, BUT I have a lower lumen projector (SONY VPL-HW45es 1800 Lumens) and hear that the whites can look a bit dull unless you can really light the panel up with a hign lumen projector. So, I'm planning to get window treatments so that my den can be fully light controlled during the day and am looking for a white screen material. I was recommended the 2.3 gain material by DNP and was told by the sales department that there was no sparkling/shimmering, but learned from owners and 'almost owners' of this material that it does in fact shimmer and show sparkles. I looked into the Parallax model by DA-LITE, but I'm afraid the lumen issue is the same. So, I am trying to essentially find the "perfect" white screen, though I do wish I could have a tad of an added black level.

Does anyone mind shedding some light on the quality of the Glacier White material, how the 1.3 gain material helps above 1.0 gain (in all aspects from color uniformity, black levels, color brightness, white brightness - possibly a tad of help with overall depth of image appearance/image saturation when there is some ambient light)? I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me their personal feelings on why or why not the Seymour Glacier White (or perhaps the gray as well) is as good or better than more expensive companies. Is the texture smoother on a white DA-LITE, Stewarts Screen or any other manufacturer? Anything anyone is willing to share will greatly help me determine what I need to do as far as a screen, and I would more than greatly appreciate it, as samples simply don't give me enough visual feedback of the end result of a 110" image.

Details on my setup that may help with advice:

Wall color - Flat, dark Wine Red (but called Red Delicious)

Seating distance 12-13'

Ambient light - 2 table lamps, 2 windows to the left, 1 on the right of the room, and a plethora of canned lights in my kitchen behind the seating area in the den (which I'll have to keep turned off if I purchase a white screen). Planning to have blackout window treatments installed if I have to go with a white material.

Projector is about to be ceiling mounted in the Kitchen, between 13'7" to 17 feet from where the screen will be. The throw distance will depend on what model screen I finally decide on.

SONY VPL-HW45es at 1800 max lumens

Den measurements 13'7" X 20-23'(I haven't measured the width)

The screen size will be 110" diagonal, or 95-96" across, in 16:9 format


----------



## chriscmore

We revised the Glacier White to nix the embossed surface texture, so it's now perfectly smooth. Its unbenchmarked gain rating is 1.1, so it would be considered a very mildly treated screen surface. I think the trick is to get just enough screen feature to get the job done, but having excessive elements such as gain coatings inevitably cause tradeoffs. The Glacier White is therefore a supremely easy screen material to live with. Meaning, it doesn't have any features that would cause you to get annoyed over time.

Gain in and of itself won't help your projector's contrast, as the white levels will be narrowed (and thus visually amplified) just as much as the black levels. If a more selective screen helps to reject white ceilings or under-treated windows, then they can help get higher contrast levels. But in an ideal room, a 1.0 screen would have the same contrast as a 2.3, but without the tradeoffs associated with higher gains (non-uniformity / hotspotting, reflective bits, etc). I understand your room is not ideal, so your efforts at improving the windows and such will pay off big time.

As for what white level you should target, it's difficult to say without knowing what residual levels of black level would be due to room contamination. Generally a more powerful projector with a lower gain gray screen would offer perfect uniformity, smoothness, and some room splash contamination resistance, but I doubt you quite have enough projector power for a gray screen to get up to the ~16-17 fL SMPTE that we recommend in a dark room. A somewhat lit room would need to punch higher than that. I doubt you'd want some dual-lamp DPI hanging in your kitchen, which is why the room and ambient conditions should be priority. Even changing out the ceiling lamps from flood to spot patterns can help tremendously.

Contact Jon or Jenna at the shop for samples, too.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## LookN2Find

chriscmore said:


> We revised the Glacier White to nix the embossed surface texture, so it's now perfectly smooth. Its unbenchmarked gain rating is 1.1, so it would be considered a very mildly treated screen surface. I think the trick is to get just enough screen feature to get the job done, but having excessive elements such as gain coatings inevitably cause tradeoffs. The Glacier White is therefore a supremely easy screen material to live with. Meaning, it doesn't have any features that would cause you to get annoyed over time.
> 
> Gain in and of itself won't help your projector's contrast, as the white levels will be narrowed (and thus visually amplified) just as much as the black levels. If a more selective screen helps to reject white ceilings or under-treated windows, then they can help get higher contrast levels. But in an ideal room, a 1.0 screen would have the same contrast as a 2.3, but without the tradeoffs associated with higher gains (non-uniformity / hotspotting, reflective bits, etc). I understand your room is not ideal, so your efforts at improving the windows and such will pay off big time.
> 
> As for what white level you should target, it's difficult to say without knowing what residual levels of black level would be due to room contamination. Generally a more powerful projector with a lower gain gray screen would offer perfect uniformity, smoothness, and some room splash contamination resistance, but I doubt you quite have enough projector power for a gray screen to get up to the ~16-17 fL SMPTE that we recommend in a dark room. A somewhat lit room would need to punch higher than that. I doubt you'd want some dual-lamp DPI hanging in your kitchen, which is why the room and ambient conditions should be priority. Even changing out the ceiling lamps from flood to spot patterns can help tremendously.
> 
> Contact Jon or Jenna at the shop for samples, too.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Excellent. So you gurantee no visual artifacts, sparkle/shimmering, wide viewing angle, no hotspotting etc? I was looking at a Stewart G3, but the price plus artifact issues are a put off. I hear their screens are sprayed to death.

Is Glacier White ISF certified as well?


----------



## chriscmore

LookN2Find said:


> Excellent. So you gurantee no visual artifacts, sparkle/shimmering, wide viewing angle, no hotspotting etc? I was looking at a Stewart G3, but the price plus artifact issues are a put off. I hear their screens are sprayed to death.
> 
> Is Glacier White ISF certified as well?


We always guarantee whatever criteria leads to your satisfaction.

Seymour AV doesn't have the pricing structure to pursue ISF certification. The Seymour-Screen Excellence brand had the Enlightor-4K ISF certified but has since discontinued the subscription to their certification. In the installations we're going into, we're expected to be best in class, not simply meeting some minimum criteria.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## cnebrask

@chriscmore - how does normal consumer obtain the Enlightor 4k material? A few years ago i did a diy UF screen, but now thinking about upgrading to a 4k projector and possibly 4k compatible screen material. Would there be a noticeable difference between UF and Enlightor 4k at say 11' viewing distance? 





chriscmore said:


> We always guarantee whatever criteria leads to your satisfaction.
> 
> Seymour AV doesn't have the pricing structure to pursue ISF certification. The Seymour-Screen Excellence brand had the Enlightor-4K ISF certified but has since discontinued the subscription to their certification. In the installations we're going into, we're expected to be best in class, not simply meeting some minimum criteria.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


----------



## chriscmore

cnebrask said:


> @chriscmore - how does normal consumer obtain the Enlightor 4k material? A few years ago i did a diy UF screen, but now thinking about upgrading to a 4k projector and possibly 4k compatible screen material. Would there be a noticeable difference between UF and Enlightor 4k at say 11' viewing distance?


The Enlightor-4K is replaced by the new Enlightor-Neo. Can you see any texture on the UF at 11'? If not, then the only benefit to the Enlightor-Neo is that it's +0.7dB more acoustically transparent. Generally we recommend a 6' minimum seating with the UF, and zero with the Neo.

To answer your question for "how", you can contact us /PM for referral to a local dealer or installer in your area if we have one. If you want to reuse your frame, you'd want the Craftsman Series, which includes the screen, optional secondary black backing layer, and a full perimeter of grip channel. If you want metal work we of course have several options too.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## cnebrask

Thanks Chris, I'll give you guys a call.. have a few more questions.




chriscmore said:


> The Enlightor-4K is replaced by the new Enlightor-Neo. Can you see any texture on the UF at 11'? If not, then the only benefit to the Enlightor-Neo is that it's +0.7dB more acoustically transparent. Generally we recommend a 6' minimum seating with the UF, and zero with the Neo.
> 
> To answer your question for "how", you can contact us /PM for referral to a local dealer or installer in your area if we have one. If you want to reuse your frame, you'd want the Craftsman Series, which includes the screen, optional secondary black backing layer, and a full perimeter of grip channel. If you want metal work we of course have several options too.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


----------



## sandyj

Has anyone been using the Ambient-Visionaire 1.2 in a light controlled room just wondering how good it is in a fully black out room vs a white screen. Will be using it for movie watching with fully blacked out but with moderate to low lighting when watching TV shows.
Do they have any other screens worth looking at for this application.


----------



## gcbram

*Screen cloth in single piece or with joints?*

I got a 115" Center stage UF fixed 2.35 screen with black backing. Under normal lighting, it shows a Center piece of cloth about 1 ft wide on each side of the Center over the entire height of the screen. This becomes more pronounced whenever bright white images appear. Overall it looks like the whole screen is not a single piece of material but 3 pieces joined together. I am not sure whether this could be from light behind the screen. It will be helpful to hear users views.


----------



## chriscmore

gcbram said:


> I got a 115" Center stage UF fixed 2.35 screen with black backing. Under normal lighting, it shows a Center piece of cloth about 1 ft wide on each side of the Center over the entire height of the screen. This becomes more pronounced whenever bright white images appear. Overall it looks like the whole screen is not a single piece of material but 3 pieces joined together. I am not sure whether this could be from light behind the screen. It will be helpful to hear users views.


No, it's a continuous roll woven at ~85" wide/tall x 1000 yards long. We've never spliced fabric, as we have options up to 240" high continuous.

The way to prove it's not something behind the screen is place something black and opaque behind it and see if the visible pattern changes. But with black backing you can place a screen over a white wall without problem, so any light from behind should be very minor. Otherwise, if you're seeing something from the front of the screen, there are some limitations within the weave but we'd need to see close up pictures to see if it's that or not.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## durack

I am looking for approximately 135 inch AT screen and seeing that this one is available on Amazon makes it convenient.

https://www.amazon.com/Seymour-AV-E...TF8&qid=1548740607&sr=8-2&keywords=Seymour+AV

Viewing distance probably 10-15 feet, will be using Sony 4K projector.

I am having a hard time figuring out this table of dimensions, though.

http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp

Also, how is it mounted?


----------



## Ladeback

durack said:


> I am looking for approximately 135 inch AT screen and seeing that this one is available on Amazon makes it convenient.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Seymour-AV-E...TF8&qid=1548740607&sr=8-2&keywords=Seymour+AV
> 
> Viewing distance probably 10-15 feet, will be using Sony 4K projector.
> 
> I am having a hard time figuring out this table of dimensions, though.
> 
> http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp
> 
> Also, how is it mounted?


It's actually would be more convenient just going through Seymour then Amazon on this one.

Chris I am sure will answer soon, but what Ratio are you going with? 16:9 or 2.35:1? Big difference in the way it is cut to fit the frame. You size is in between and if you email or call they are very happy to help.

For a 135" at 16:9 it would be 117.66"x66.19". A 135" at 2.35:1 would be 124.22"x52.86" Now that is the framed dimensions, the screen material will be a little bigger would be my guess.

They make a really great screen, there are a few guys on the forum in my area that have them. I hope to some day get a bigger AT screen from them at some point.


----------



## chriscmore

Keep in mind that every screen is built to order; we have nothing in stock. Therefore, we can just as easily make it custom to the 0.1" resolution to make sure it's perfect for your room. You can simply give us any dimension and everything else can scale. We don't charge extra but just round up to the next standard size. Contact us if you want to go this route.

For the Precision frame, the drawing and dimensions are listed about 2/3 down this page: http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp The frame is about 2.6" wide and mounts just like our other fixed frame screens, using the supplied french cleats.

FTR, more AVS Home Theaters of the Month use a Seymour screen than all other screen companies combined.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## den110

Hi Chris

Looking to see how big of a AT Seymour screen I can have with the front of my HT being 134 inches wide. It will be a DIY so I will build frame myself. I was thinking of building a false wall so I can have the front speakers and SW behind the screen. The left side of screen will be quite close to the left wall. Will that be an issue? I have enclosed a pic of the front for your reference. The right side will have 16 inches before door frame. The ceiling height is 7 feet. With the false wall in place, it will be 10 feet to the backrest of the front seats. Walls and ceiling are black and total light control in HT.


----------



## chriscmore

The only issue with snuggling next to a wall is that the light splash will be more visible. You've done an admirable job already with the dark colors, but acoustically I'd recommend a wall treatment on the left anyway to help balance out the openness of the right. A black fabric would be more light absorbent, too. Secondly, I'd cross the left and right even more to steer more away from the left wall, such as aiming the left at the right seat and vice versa. This will widen out the sweet spot, improve imaging for the off-axis seats, and further reduce the acoustic reflection of that left wall.

For that viewing distance, you should go with the Center Stage UF. While the lower gain will help further reduce room splash contamination, you should try for as much projector output as you can swing. I'd like you to have 1500 lumens calibrated, so allowing for some bulb aging you might be in the 2500-3000 gross lumen class.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## DavidK442

chriscmore said:


> The only issue with snuggling next to a wall is that the light splash will be more visible. You've done an admirable job already with the dark colors, but acoustically I'd recommend a wall treatment on the left anyway to help balance out the openness of the right. A black fabric would be more light absorbent, too. Secondly, I'd cross the left and right even more to steer more away from the left wall, such as aiming the left at the right seat and vice versa. This will widen out the sweet spot, improve imaging for the off-axis seats, and further reduce the acoustic reflection of that left wall.
> 
> For that viewing distance, you should go with the Center Stage UF. While the lower gain will help further reduce room splash contamination, you should try for as much projector output as you can swing. I'd like you to have 1500 lumens calibrated, so allowing for some bulb aging you might be in the 2500-3000 gross lumen class.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Ditto.
@den110 In the first couple posts of the thread link below you will find photos comparing different black fabric options, primarily velvet.
Makes a huge difference when pushing a screen up next to a wall or ceiling.
Blacker the theater the better the image


----------



## cnebrask

Hey @chriscmore, Need your expert opinion on screen material - I've had 135" UF screen + sony hw40es for about 3 years now. Just bit on the new JVC NX7, and now want to go to a 150"+ scope screen. My front row seating is at 12' and viewing mostly movies these days. From time to time i throw up my XD screen sample and wish i had that extra brightness. So question is, with 150" scope screen @ 12' with JVC NX7 (1900 lumens) would you go UF or XD? I can say that at 12' i see no weave on either material.

Thanks!


----------



## chriscmore

cnebrask said:


> Hey @chriscmore, Need your expert opinion on screen material - I've had 135" UF screen + sony hw40es for about 3 years now. Just bit on the new JVC NX7, and now want to go to a 150"+ scope screen. My front row seating is at 12' and viewing mostly movies these days. From time to time i throw up my XD screen sample and wish i had that extra brightness. So question is, with 150" scope screen @ 12' with JVC NX7 (1900 lumens) would you go UF or XD? I can say that at 12' i see no weave on either material.
> 
> Thanks!


Interesting. I'm a bit of a contrarian currently with respect to brightness levels, with most of my ranting put on our projectors page: http://www.seymourav.com/projectors.asp That said, you're in the enviable position to have both materials on hand for evaluation. You notice the difference in white levels, but do you notice any difference in the black levels? For me, I'd lean toward the using the UF at the 12' seating distance but I'm a black level fan more than a brightness junkie. Based on what I'm hearing from you (texture is not an issue, you like the extra brightness), it sounds like the XD would be better.

Congrats on the NX7. As you can tell now, we've jumped whole heartedly into their line.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## cnebrask

In regards to black levels - I've tested many dark and black scenes and i don't notice much difference between the two, i only notice the additional brightness of the XD in really bright/white scenes. I'll probably do some more testing once this new JVC arrivves, but i think I just have a case of "always want what you don't have", but your comments make sense to me and you are probably right that UF is a better fit. Interesting read on brightness, thanks for the link. 





chriscmore said:


> Interesting. I'm a bit of a contrarian currently with respect to brightness levels, with most of my ranting put on our projectors page: http://www.seymourav.com/projectors.asp That said, you're in the enviable position to have both materials on hand for evaluation. You notice the difference in white levels, but do you notice any difference in the black levels? For me, I'd lean toward the using the UF at the 12' seating distance but I'm a black level fan more than a brightness junkie. Based on what I'm hearing from you (texture is not an issue, you like the extra brightness), it sounds like the XD would be better.
> 
> Congrats on the NX7. As you can tell now, we've jumped whole heartedly into their line.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


----------



## rossandwendy

@chriscmore, are you able to obtain any other non-AT white materials besides your current Glacier White on an order of one of your Premier frames? Such as Stewart material? Or any others?

Ross


----------



## chriscmore

rossandwendy said:


> @chriscmore, are you able to obtain any other non-AT white materials besides your current Glacier White on an order of one of your Premier frames? Such as Stewart material? Or any others?
> 
> Ross


The Glacier White PS (for its now perfectly smooth version) is the only white non-AT material we have in inventory. We have had people send in their Stewarts to upgrade, so we can match their dimensions and hole spacings on the grommeted versions.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## skibbs

Hello,

I recently started exploring Seymour's offerings, I like what I've seen so far and I appreciate the slightly irreverent tone of your brand. I'm building out a living room setup w/ window coverings for nighttime use with a not-so-bright JVC NX5 or X790R. The H105 retractable screen looks like a good fit for my needs but I was wondering if you offer it with any other materials, possibly the new Matinee Wide? I think most of the year I'll be fine re: ambient light but during late summer nights it might be annoying so the Matinee Wide looks interesting. On your site, I see the CS XD & UF options which seem well-liked by folks on here but because I have no need for AT material I would like to avoid the associated light loss, if possible. 

Thanks for the help!


----------



## chriscmore

skibbs said:


> Hello,
> 
> I recently started exploring Seymour's offerings, I like what I've seen so far and I appreciate the slightly irreverent tone of your brand. I'm building out a living room setup w/ window coverings for nighttime use with a not-so-bright JVC NX5 or X790R. The H105 retractable screen looks like a good fit for my needs but I was wondering if you offer it with any other materials, possibly the new Matinee Wide? I think most of the year I'll be fine re: ambient light but during late summer nights it might be annoying so the Matinee Wide looks interesting. On your site, I see the CS XD & UF options which seem well-liked by folks on here but because I have no need for AT material I would like to avoid the associated light loss, if possible.
> 
> Thanks for the help!


We've been working on a non-AT retractable design for years now. The next round of prototypes are be built in March, so I may have something for you soon. We'll be starting with the new Matinee Wide (Mark Henninger has been using the S-SE version with his Epson review here

I have the NX5 and X790R on hand if you'd like it calibrated to your screen, too.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## howiee

Hi chriscmore, a few questions for when you get a moment pls.

Proscenium motorised masking. It looks great and there's one thing that would likely convince me to start saving for one. How does the electric masking work alongside the magnetic masks - does it slide under them? If so, would it be possible to have the magnetic masks take a 150" 16:9 screen down to scope, then have the electric masks take that back to a smaller 16:9? I'm after a solution for variable aspect movies.

Re. Center Stage XD - does the size of the screen have any influence on how visible the weave is? I'm guessing not, but would like some assurance. Everything I've read suggests 11' or over is fine and we'd be watching at 12' at either 130"-140" wide scope, or 150" 16:9.

Cheers!


----------



## chriscmore

howiee said:


> Hi chriscmore, a few questions for when you get a moment pls.
> 
> Proscenium motorised masking. It looks great and there's one thing that would likely convince me to start saving for one. How does the electric masking work alongside the magnetic masks - does it slide under them? If so, would it be possible to have the magnetic masks take a 150" 16:9 screen down to scope, then have the electric masks take that back to a smaller 16:9? I'm after a solution for variable aspect movies.
> 
> Re. Center Stage XD - does the size of the screen have any influence on how visible the weave is? I'm guessing not, but would like some assurance. Everything I've read suggests 11' or over is fine and we'd be watching at 12' at either 130"-140" wide scope, or 150" 16:9.
> 
> Cheers!


The optional magnetic masking panels fit in front of the motorized masks, inside the edge of the velvet fascia. In theory we can do what you're asking for, but it'd be a first. Normally we're providing the magnetic panels in a Proscenium build to get 1.33 or do an inexpensive 4-way system.

The visibility of the XD texture is just a function of viewing distance and one's personal acuity to it. The general consensus is about 11', but we have both happy customers at 8' and people who can see it at 14'. To determine if you're good at 12', I'd suggest a sample. If it were me, I'd go with UF at 12'.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## howiee

chriscmore said:


> The optional magnetic masking panels fit in front of the motorized masks, inside the edge of the velvet fascia. In theory we can do what you're asking for, but it'd be a first. Normally we're providing the magnetic panels in a Proscenium build to get 1.33 or do an inexpensive 4-way system.
> 
> The visibility of the XD texture is just a function of viewing distance and one's personal acuity to it. The general consensus is about 11', but we have both happy customers at 8' and people who can see it at 14'. To determine if you're good at 12', I'd suggest a sample. If it were me, I'd go with UF at 12'.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks, Chris. Much appreciated! If we go with the screen size we want, we're right at the cusp re. brightness, so would want the gain. Samples sound like a sensible plan. 

I'll bear that in mind re. the Proscenium. It seems the best of all worlds to me - CIH with the option for variable imax (or just massive 19:9 for giggles  )

All the best.


----------



## howiee

Has anyone seen the Glacier White PS material in the wild? I can't see a neutral gain screen on the website and this looks like Seymour's non AT white option. If so, any sheen at all? I'm torn between two room configurations - one that has room for an false wall/AT screen and one that doesn't - and want to stick with Seymour for their masking options. I notice the sheen on Studiotech 130 material and wouldn't want that.


----------



## mdcubsfan

Hello - Just stumbled across these screens on the Epson 5050 board. Was just about to pull the trigger on a Silver Ticket 135" Woven Acoustic. 

Don't know if I can get a good unbiased answer here but will try - is there or would I notice a big step up in paying for a $1500 Seymour screen versus a $500 Silver ticket screen?

Room is pretty dark but we only use the projector at night time, so it's totally dark by then.

Epson 5050 projector will be set up 15-16' away from the screen, which would go in approximately the black rectangle as pictured. 

More choices to paralyze my decision making - thanks for any help and suggestions.

Behind is a white wall and white cabinets as you can see, so was considering the added black. Current screen is 90"


----------



## bigbadbob

I love my Seymour XD AT 130” 2.35 screen! Worth every penny.


----------



## KCWolfPck

I am super happy with mine too. I just installed it this weekend. It is a custom 154" wide 2.40:1 screen with Glacier White material and magnetic side masking panels for 16:9. Screen diagonal is 166" (2.40:1) and 130" (16:9). 

Here are some pics:


----------



## Keith AP

KCWolfPck said:


> I am super happy with mine too. I just installed it this weekend. It is a custom 154" wide 2.40:1 screen with Glacier White material and magnetic side masking panels for 16:9. Screen diagonal is 166" (2.40:1) and 130" (16:9).



Looks great KC. What frame did you get and is the length a single or split frame piece.


----------



## KCWolfPck

Keith AP said:


> Looks great KC. What frame did you get and is the length a single or split frame piece.


It is the Premier frame.....each side is a single piece.


----------



## llang269

KC man I’m love your theater! I’m looking at the same chairs. And that carpet looks great!


----------



## chriscmore

Great theater! I really like how you hid the projector, and the dark ceiling and acoustic panels are too often overlooked details. Once you're used to masking the unused portions of your screen, you'll never tolerate unmasked screens.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## dropzone7

KCWolfPck said:


> I am super happy with mine too. I just installed it this weekend. It is a custom 154" wide 2.40:1 screen with Glacier White material and magnetic side masking panels for 16:9. Screen diagonal is 166" (2.40:1) and 130" (16:9).
> 
> Here are some pics:



Very nice! Where did you get the rug?


----------



## KCWolfPck

dropzone7 said:


> Very nice! Where did you get the rug?


Thanks. I ordered the area rug from HTMarket.


----------



## NIN74

I don't know what size of screen I shall get for my AT retractable screen.
I building my new room now and I will have these dimensions. The room is far from ready and will be rather light controlled when Im finished.

-The front speakers will be 11,8 feet apart (middle of tweeter to middle of tweeter).

-Viewing distance (if the screen is around 3-4 inch from the speakers) will be 13,6 feet.

-The projector will be behind the wall, about 18 feet from the screen.

I will probably go for a 2.10:1 screen for my need. 

If I go for a 140 inch screen, I probably could get that with a case (a friend have that) and my Sony hw-55 (and future JVC?) will zoom that with no problem.
But the screen will not cover my speakers fully.

If I go for a 150 inch, I will not get that with a case, and with some projectors, I need to zoom out a lot to fill the screen.
But I will cover my speakers and get a bigger picture.

Any suggestions?


----------



## chriscmore

NIN74 said:


> I don't know what size of screen I shall get for my AT retractable screen.
> I building my new room now and I will have these dimensions. The room is far from ready and will be rather light controlled when Im finished.
> 
> -The front speakers will be 11,8 feet apart (middle of tweeter to middle of tweeter).
> 
> -Viewing distance (if the screen is around 3-4 inch from the speakers) will be 13,6 feet.
> 
> -The projector will be behind the wall, about 18 feet from the screen.
> 
> I will probably go for a 2.10:1 screen for my need.
> 
> If I go for a 140 inch screen, I probably could get that with a case (a friend have that) and my Sony hw-55 (and future JVC?) will zoom that with no problem.
> But the screen will not cover my speakers fully.
> 
> If I go for a 150 inch, I will not get that with a case, and with some projectors, I need to zoom out a lot to fill the screen.
> But I will cover my speakers and get a bigger picture.
> 
> Any suggestions?


I'd recommend staying inside the L/R speakers. At your 13.6' viewing distance, a 140" wide image will be 46.4 degrees, which is larger than guidelines. Since 140"w is pushing what your projector can properly light up, that's another vote for not pushing it larger.

Generally speaking, the 40-45 degree wide recommended viewing angle and the 60 degree wide recommended L/R listening angle should cause most installations to size the screen to be inside the L/R channels. This is what we do in our demo theater and in the new theaters we're building we'll only include the L/R in the screen area when we can have oversized, masked screen sizes.

If you're up to it, I'd recommend darkening your ceiling color a few shades if the boss allows. Any darkening will dramatically improve your contrast ratio. Also, you might look into getting an anamorphic lens to get your light output up a bit.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## AudioFan810

Hi @chriscmore...I am weighing screen choices and have a couple of questions related to the Glacier White PS...

1) When was this screen material developed?

2) What does the benchmark gain of 1.3 vs unbenchmark gain of 1.1 refer to? Is this designed gain vs actual gain?

Thanks.


----------



## chriscmore

AudioFan810 said:


> Hi @chriscmore...I am weighing screen choices and have a couple of questions related to the Glacier White PS...
> 
> 1) When was this screen material developed?
> 
> 2) What does the benchmark gain of 1.3 vs unbenchmark gain of 1.1 refer to? Is this designed gain vs actual gain?
> 
> Thanks.


The perfectly-smooth (PS) versions of our Glacier Gray and White screens were released last summer.

Unbenchmarked rating ignores other screens and is useful for calculating a FtL figure.

Benchmarked gains mean when compared to other screens except Stewart, you can approximately judge whether the brightness (of both white and black levels) from one screen will be higher or lower when coming from another screen. Every screen company except Stewart has no idea how to properly measure gain and they think they can simply release some marketing number. Benchmarking means we take our screen and roughly compare to the basket of lying weasels.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## AudioFan810

chriscmore said:


> The perfectly-smooth (PS) versions of our Glacier Gray and White screens were released last summer.
> 
> Unbenchmarked rating ignores other screens and is useful for calculating a FtL figure.
> 
> Benchmarked gains mean when compared to other screens except Stewart, you can approximately judge whether the brightness (of both white and black levels) from one screen will be higher or lower when coming from another screen. Every screen company except Stewart has no idea how to properly measure gain and they think they can simply release some marketing number. Benchmarking means we take our screen and roughly compare to the basket of lying weasels.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hi Chris...thanks for the response. I have only had a Stewart Firehawk screen before, so I am actually trying to compare screen gains against the Stewart ST100 and ST130, which were the screens I initially thought to get. 

Maybe a better question would be how does the new Glacier White material compare to the old Glacier White material as far as screen gain goes? The same?

I have been using the AccuCal Screen Material report from late 2016 as a reference source. The report stated that the Seymour AV Glacier White, that was being formulated at that time, had a published gain of 1.1. JM got an actual on-axis gain of 1.05, which is pretty close, and an 18% off-axis gain of 1.02, which is great!

Basically, I am trying to figure out how the gain of the new GW material compares to the ST100 and/or fits within the scheme of the overall AccuCal report.

Thanks.
Ralph


----------



## NIN74

KCWolfPck said:


> I am super happy with mine too. I just installed it this weekend. It is a custom 154" wide 2.40:1 screen with Glacier White material and magnetic side masking panels for 16:9. Screen diagonal is 166" (2.40:1) and 130" (16:9).
> 
> Here are some pics:


Really nice. How close do you sit to the screen?


----------



## NIN74

chriscmore said:


> I'd recommend staying inside the L/R speakers. At your 13.6' viewing distance, a 140" wide image will be 46.4 degrees, which is larger than guidelines. Since 140"w is pushing what your projector can properly light up, that's another vote for not pushing it larger.
> 
> Generally speaking, the 40-45 degree wide recommended viewing angle and the 60 degree wide recommended L/R listening angle should cause most installations to size the screen to be inside the L/R channels. This is what we do in our demo theater and in the new theaters we're building we'll only include the L/R in the screen area when we can have oversized, masked screen sizes.
> 
> If you're up to it, I'd recommend darkening your ceiling color a few shades if the boss allows. Any darkening will dramatically improve your contrast ratio. Also, you might look into getting an anamorphic lens to get your light output up a bit.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thank. I was looking what Epson TW-9400 could do. And on a 150" screen, I could get at least 20 ft. I will think a little more about it. 

Yes, the walls and floor will have dark fabric. I don't know what I will do with the ceiling. Paint the first 6,5 fett from the screen black? But then again, that is not as black as black velvet. If I could do a retractable black velvet ceiling "screen" I could only use when I watch a movie.


----------



## NIN74

Is it possible with magnetic masking panels on retractable screens?


----------



## KCWolfPck

NIN74 said:


> Really nice. How close do you sit to the screen?


It’s 13’


----------



## jsil

Hi, KCWolfPck

Did you notice a difference in PQ coming from your Carada screen to the Glacier White? Also, did you see any visual artefacts, sparkle/shimmering, wide viewing angle, hotspotting etc thanks?


----------



## KCWolfPck

jsil said:


> Hi, KCWolfPck
> 
> Did you notice a difference in PQ coming from your Carada screen to the Glacier White? Also, did you see any visual artefacts, sparkle/shimmering, wide viewing angle, hotspotting etc thanks?


I haven't had the Carada screen for many years, so I can't give a direct comparison. I haven't noticed any artifacts, sparkle, shimmering, or hotspotting with the Glacier White screen. The picture looks really good, even from a wide viewing angle. We are setting up a game table in the empty space over by the window...the screen looks great from there....even with lights on it is very watchable.


----------



## chriscmore

We don't have a detachable panel option for retractable screens, because they're just too risky. One roll-up with the panels not removed would likely affect the screen and they're not easily replaceable. We do have dual-roller retractable screens with motorized masking as an option. It's larger, heavier, and costlier, but it's the bees knees.

The Glacier White PS will end up measuring about the same gain as the previous version Jeff tested. I think he's had a sample to test, as I know I sent him the Enlightor-Neo when it was developed. It would compare well with the ST100, as it doesn't have the high-gain elements that the ST130 has on it.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Don Stewart

chriscmore said:


> The perfectly-smooth (PS) versions of our Glacier Gray and White screens were released last summer.
> 
> Unbenchmarked rating ignores other screens and is useful for calculating a FtL figure.
> 
> Benchmarked gains mean when compared to other screens except Stewart, you can approximately judge whether the brightness (of both white and black levels) from one screen will be higher or lower when coming from another screen. Every screen company except Stewart has no idea how to properly measure gain and they think they can simply release some marketing number. Benchmarking means we take our screen and roughly compare to the basket of lying weasels.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


 Hi Chris. 

I usually do not comment on other screen companies threads, but that being said, I can not agree with you more on your comment, _"Every screen company except Stewart has no idea how to properly measure gain and they think they can simply release some marketing number. Bench marking means we take our screen and roughly compare to the *basket of lying weasels*"._ I see so called screen specification numbers published by other screen companies, mainly of Asian origin, that defy the physics of light. Anyway, rant over. Carry on.

Don


----------



## NIN74

KCWolfPck said:


> It’s 13’


Nice, around how close I will sit. No problem with such a big screen?


----------



## howiee

chriscmore said:


> It would compare well with the ST100, as it doesn't have the high-gain elements that the ST130 has on it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Interesttng. Does that mean there is no sheen or sparkles with the material?


----------



## StevenC56

chriscmore said:


> We don't have a detachable panel option for retractable screens, because they're just too risky. One roll-up with the panels not removed would likely affect the screen and they're not easily replaceable. We do have dual-roller retractable screens with motorized masking as an option. It's larger, heavier, and costlier, but it's the bees knees.
> 
> The Glacier White PS will end up measuring about the same gain as the previous version Jeff tested. I think he's had a sample to test, as I know I sent him the Enlightor-Neo when it was developed. It would compare well with the ST100, as it doesn't have the high-gain elements that the ST130 has on it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hey Chris! Any progress on a retrofit masking solution for us Seymour AV retractable owners?

Steve


----------



## JonnyFive54950

howiee said:


> Interesttng. Does that mean there is no sheen or sparkles with the material?



I have samples of all of Seymour's materials (thanks Jon!) and there's no sheen, sparkle, or any other visible artifact with any of the solid screens.


----------



## howiee

JonnyFive54950 said:


> I have samples of all of Seymour's materials (thanks Jon!) and there's no sheen, sparkle, or any other visible artifact with any of the solid screens.


Cheers Jonny. Sounds encouraging! Did you get a chance to measure gain on any of these?


----------



## JonnyFive54950

howiee said:


> Cheers Jonny. Sounds encouraging! Did you get a chance to measure gain on any of these?



I do not have that equipment, I trust Seymour's reported numbers are accurate.


----------



## J.P

chriscmore said:


> The Glacier White PS will end up measuring about the same gain as the previous version Jeff tested. I think he's had a sample to test, as I know I sent him the Enlightor-Neo when it was developed. It would compare well with the ST100, as it doesn't have the high-gain elements that the ST130 has on it.


Interesting, so that means Glacier White PS will have a gain of 1.05 on axis.
But how does it compere to the ST100 on visible texture(not from sitting position) ? And how accurate does it track D65 ? 
And also, how thick is the screen, can you see light on the backside ?


----------



## NIN74

Jon, I have emailed you about buying a screen.


----------



## Gates

I will be doing a new build in a few months and with all my research, I came to the conclusion that I want a Stewart screen. Do they sell them in Canada?


----------



## StevenC56

Gates said:


> I will be doing a new build in a few months and with all my research, I came to the conclusion that I want a Stewart screen. Do they sell them in Canada?


This is the SeymourAV thread, so you'll need to post your question in the Stewart thread.


----------



## Gates

StevenC56 said:


> This is the SeymourAV thread, so you'll need to post your question in the Stewart thread.


Sorry I meant Seymour, don't know why I had Stewart on the brain.


----------



## Mahuzz13

Gates said:


> I will be doing a new build in a few months and with all my research, I came to the conclusion that I want a Stewart screen. Do they sell them in Canada?




Did you notice the the title of this thread and it is unfortunate that you would want to pay such a higher price for minimum amount of different. Of course the sell them in Canada but agin at crazy pricing from an authorized dealer. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gates

Mahuzz13 said:


> Did you notice the the title of this thread and it is unfortunate that you would want to pay such a higher price for minimum amount of different. Of course the sell them in Canada but agin at crazy pricing from an authorized dealer.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well if you would of read to the end of this thread you would of seen that I made a mistake when mentioning the name.


----------



## Mahuzz13

Sorry I think I was typing at the same time you corrected yourself again sorry 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

Gates said:


> I will be doing a new build in a few months and with all my research, I came to the conclusion that I want a *Seymour *screen. Do they sell them in Canada?


Yes, we sell into Canada no problem. Simply contact us for what you're interested in and we'll figure out shipping costs.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## LIPLASMA

Just wanted to say received my premiere 16x9 fixed frame 120" Glacier White screen w/ masking panels. The frame itself is very high quality and the install was very easy.

The masking panels are a great addition and make such a difference when watching content with bars. I was on the fence about ordering them but they look great. The panels are so easy to attach and remove and are very high quality. I got the single piece panels which I would also highly recommend. 

Just wanted to post my impressions for anyone thinking about using Seymour for their screen.


----------



## JonnyFive54950

LIPLASMA said:


> Just wanted to say received my premiere 16x9 fixed frame 120" Glacier White screen w/ masking panels. The frame itself is very high quality and the install was very easy.
> 
> The masking panels are a great addition and make such a difference when watching content with bars. I was on the fence about ordering them but they look great. The panels are so easy to attach and remove and are very high quality. I got the single piece panels which I would also highly recommend.
> 
> Just wanted to post my impressions for anyone thinking about using Seymour for their screen.



I'm thinking this exact combination (GW 16x9 120" wide with masking to scope). I was thinking of two piece panels, since 10' wide panels seem rather cumbersome to move around. Do you find the one piece panels easy to maneuver?


----------



## LIPLASMA

JonnyFive54950 said:


> I'm thinking this exact combination (GW 16x9 120" wide with masking to scope). I was thinking of two piece panels, since 10' wide panels seem rather cumbersome to move around. Do you find the one piece panels easy to maneuver?


I do not find the panels hard to move around. The panels are much easier to put in place than I had pictured in my mind before I purchased. I was on the fence also about the single panel but it looks amazing when attached and you would be hard pressed to tell the screen didn't come like that. The magnets just let you pop them right in place and the fit is great. I didn't want the noticeable split you can see with the 4 piece panels. I would say the single panel is the way to go at 120" if you are going panels, which I highly recommend once I started watching scope with panels I cant go back to bars. 

For reference I am using a Epson 6050UB @16ft

If you have any other questions I would be glad to answer them.


----------



## Mahuzz13

LIPLASMA said:


> Just wanted to say received my premiere 16x9 fixed frame 120" Glacier White screen w/ masking panels. The frame itself is very high quality and the install was very easy.
> 
> 
> 
> The masking panels are a great addition and make such a difference when watching content with bars. I was on the fence about ordering them but they look great. The panels are so easy to attach and remove and are very high quality. I got the single piece panels which I would also highly recommend.
> 
> 
> 
> Just wanted to post my impressions for anyone thinking about using Seymour for their screen.




Did you go 120” diagonal or 120” wide? Jut wanted to clarify if they make that single panel 10’ wide or wider that’s all. I would like the masking panel to be 1 piece as well. 

I am hoping Chris could answer what is the widest masking panel you could make?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LIPLASMA

Mahuzz13 said:


> Did you go 120” diagonal or 120” wide? Jut wanted to clarify if they make that single panel 10’ wide or wider that’s all. I would like the masking panel to be 1 piece as well.
> 
> I am hoping Chris could answer what is the widest masking panel you could make?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have a 16x9 screen so the masking panels are on the top and bottom of the screen for scope content. My panels are almost 9' long.


----------



## JonnyFive54950

LIPLASMA said:


> I do not find the panels hard to move around. The panels are much easier to put in place than I had pictured in my mind before I purchased. I was on the fence also about the single panel but it looks amazing when attached and you would be hard pressed to tell the screen didn't come like that. The magnets just let you pop them right in place and the fit is great. I didn't want the noticeable split you can see with the 4 piece panels. I would say the single panel is the way to go at 120" if you are going panels, which I highly recommend once I started watching scope with panels I cant go back to bars.
> 
> For reference I am using a Epson 6050UB @16ft
> 
> If you have any other questions I would be glad to answer them.



Thanks for the input! I am going to see if I can create space right under the floating screen to store them when not in use (I play a lot of PS4 in 16x9). If so, I'll definitely do the one piece panels.


----------



## chriscmore

I think we did some around 20ft long. The reason we split the top/bottom into halves as standard is so that you're not swinging around a 10-12' long panel. But, if you think you can swing it (ha!), we'll make about anything you want.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Mahuzz13

chriscmore said:


> I think we did some around 20ft long. The reason we split the top/bottom into halves as standard is so that you're not swinging around a 10-12' long panel. But, if you think you can swing it (ha!), we'll make about anything you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris




Thanks Chris for the info much appreciated and yes I think I can swing it (ha ha!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## monstosity12

*Polarization*

Going to be ordering the Seymour matinee silver 2.0 or ambient visionaire 2.1

Just had a question regarding the screens polarization properties. Do these screen have polarization? Need to know since I’m getting a jvc rs2000 and read something about matching the correct 3D glasses with projector/screen. 

Thanks


----------



## chriscmore

monstosity12 said:


> Going to be ordering the Seymour matinee silver 2.0 or ambient visionaire 2.1
> 
> Just had a question regarding the screens polarization properties. Do these screen have polarization? Need to know since I’m getting a jvc rs2000 and read something about matching the correct 3D glasses with projector/screen.
> 
> Thanks


They do retain polarity, so you can use them with polarized 3D systems (passive, or JVC, etc) The Ambient-Visionaire 1.3 is wide angle enough that it's polarity retention is borderline. The scatter screens (white, gray) do not retain polarity.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## BrolicBeast

After 3 years with my 12ft wide 16:9 SeymourAV Centerstage XD screen, I decided to FINALLY apply my magnetic 2.35 masking last night, just to switch it up. I love the look, and while I’m on the fence as to whether or not I”ll keep it like this, I encourage anybody here to go with 16:9 screen WITH scope masking so you have the option for either-or. It’s a great feeling knowing I can switch back and forth at will.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bittermidget

BrolicBeast said:


> After 3 years with my 12ft wide 16:9 SeymourAV Centerstage XD screen, I decided to FINALLY apply my magnetic 2.35 masking last night, just to switch it up. I love the look, and while I’m on the fence as to whether or not I”ll keep it like this, I encourage anybody here to go with 16:9 screen WITH scope masking so you have the option for either-or. It’s a great feeling knowing I can switch back and forth at will.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


...or a 2.35:1/2.40:1 screen with side masks. Either way, you are absolutely correct and the masks are a really nice visual upgrade, even with a high contrast projector.

Nice room!


----------



## BrolicBeast

Bittermidget said:


> ...or a 2.35:1/2.40:1 screen with side masks. Either way, you are absolutely correct and the masks are a really nice visual upgrade, even with a high contrast projector.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice room!


True, true!!! Side masks work too!! And thank you! 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## BrolicBeast

Man this CinemaScope masking is growing on me. I'm starting not to miss the 16:9 floor to ceiling image... Don't tell anybody though. Shhhh.









Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ladeback

BrolicBeast said:


> Man this CinemaScope masking is growing on me. I'm starting not to miss the 16:9 floor to ceiling image... Don't tell anybody though. Shhhh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Ya, but when watching sports the big 16:9 is nice I bet.


----------



## Iceberg62

Hi Chris, 
I'm sure you hear this all the time but I'm looking to buy a screen and the options, opinions and information are overwhelming. I was hoping you could recommend a screen for me? My room in 16' 4" long x 14' 2" wide. It is a dedicated theater room with no windows and a large double door opening in the back right corner. The ceiling slopes back to front from 12' to 8' so the average height is about 10' high. Anyway, I only plan on having one row of seating. It can be anywhere in the room but I'm thinking the back of the seats will be about 3' off of the back wall. That puts my head 13' from the screen. I also will be using an epson 5040ub projector. The walls are dark gray and the ceiling and screen wall are black. I can completely control the light in the room but it would be nice to be able to leave some lights on, or at least dimmed during the sporting events, etc. So with that being said, which screen do you recommend? I really would like to have 120" diagonal 16:9 with masking panels for 2.4.


----------



## chriscmore

Iceberg62 said:


> Hi Chris,
> I'm sure you hear this all the time but I'm looking to buy a screen and the options, opinions and information are overwhelming. I was hoping you could recommend a screen for me? My room in 16' 4" long x 14' 2" wide. It is a dedicated theater room with no windows and a large double door opening in the back right corner. The ceiling slopes back to front from 12' to 8' so the average height is about 10' high. Anyway, I only plan on having one row of seating. It can be anywhere in the room but I'm thinking the back of the seats will be about 3' off of the back wall. That puts my head 13' from the screen. I also will be using an epson 5040ub projector. The walls are dark gray and the ceiling and screen wall are black. I can completely control the light in the room but it would be nice to be able to leave some lights on, or at least dimmed during the sporting events, etc. So with that being said, which screen do you recommend? I really would like to have 120" diagonal 16:9 with masking panels for 2.4.


Sitting 13' back from a 105"w/120"d screen would be a bit small at 37 degree wide viewing. If you can scoot your seating forward or entertain a bit larger screen, the guidelines would vote for you getting up to around 40 degrees. Of course personal preferences reign and often room constraints are just that.

Kudos on the darker colors. Are you looking for acoustically transparent or non-AT?

For masking panels, we'll narrow it to the Premier frame (3.3"w) or the Metro (1.5"w).

Keep in mind that we make every screen custom to the 0.1" resolution, so let's make sure we get it perfect for you. As they say, you date the projector and marry the screen.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Iceberg62

Thanks for the reply. I could definitely go with a larger screen. I need to see how much vertical space I have above my media console. I don’t need an AT screen. I was in a local store that had an epson 5050 with a Da Lite Parallax that I thought looked really good. That made me think that maybe I wanted a ALR screen but if I can leave a few cans on (and dimmed) and still get a better picture with the projector I have then I’m up for that too. I was reading about the two glacier materials trying to decide if one of those might be a better option. 

For reference, the room has:
-four cans on a dimmer that wash the screen. 
-four overhead cans on a separate dimmer
-two cans in a soffit on each side of the room that are wall washers, on their own dimmer. 
-led up lights in the soffit on their own dimmer
-led floor lights that go around the room built into the baseboards on their own dimmer

I would like the option to not have to be in a cave and still be able to have a watchable screen for sports, etc.


----------



## Audixium

chriscmore said:


> As they say, you date the projector and marry the screen.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


First time seeing this phrasing...many thanks for the reminder as my room is close to screenwall phase.


----------



## chriscmore

Iceberg62 said:


> Thanks for the reply. I could definitely go with a larger screen. I need to see how much vertical space I have above my media console. I don’t need an AT screen. I was in a local store that had an epson 5050 with a Da Lite Parallax that I thought looked really good. That made me think that maybe I wanted a ALR screen but if I can leave a few cans on (and dimmed) and still get a better picture with the projector I have then I’m up for that too. I was reading about the two glacier materials trying to decide if one of those might be a better option.
> 
> For reference, the room has:
> -four cans on a dimmer that wash the screen.
> -four overhead cans on a separate dimmer
> -two cans in a soffit on each side of the room that are wall washers, on their own dimmer.
> -led up lights in the soffit on their own dimmer
> -led floor lights that go around the room built into the baseboards on their own dimmer
> 
> I would like the option to not have to be in a cave and still be able to have a watchable screen for sports, etc.


The Glacier screens are still Lambertian, or scatter type screens, so they don't offer ambient light rejection. They're still intended for as perfectly dark a room as possible. The benefit, however, is that they offer a perfectly smooth, uniform image. The more aggressive you incorporate ambient light fighting features, the further you move away from reference. It can still look very good, and we always seek to marry the perfect type of screen to the room, but like in acoustics, starting with a better room is always better. To continue the analogy in acoustics, you can go with narrow dispersion horn drivers to reduce the ambient effects (just like ALR screens), and they can sound great, but take on a character of their own.

Make sure all the lights are as spot/narrow focus as possible. Wide or flood light angles wash more light on the screen, reducing image quality. You can get a surprising amount of audience lighting without degrading the image much, if your bulb angles are narrow enough.

If you stuck with the smaller 105"w/120"d then I think the Glacier Gray would be a good choice since an Epson would have plenty of power and could benefit from having its black level improved by 20% (and a theoretical room splash contamination resistance of 36%).

If you went larger - tougher to do with a non-AT screen - then that'd start to vote for the Glacier White to keep the luminance levels up. With either screen, sports and some lights would be fine, as you can kick the Epson up to a higher output picture mode and shadow details aren't as important.

If you want to talk specs and pricing, I'd email Jon at [email protected] or hit us up through the contact us template.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

If anyone is going to CEDIA, please come visit us in Sound Room 10. This is our 13th year exhibiting at CEDIA, returning to the city where we started, Denver. We'll be showing off a (for a sound room) massive 160"w (176"d) 2.2 ratio, Enlightor-Neo fixed screen. Our partner Audio Excellence will be providing their 7.2.4 system and Wolf Cinema showing off a new 10,000 lumen UHD DLP projector. Other partners include Kaleidescape, Storm Audio, and Auralex. Outside the booth we'll be showing off the new, largest size of the three motorized masking screens: the Adjustable Ratio Theater (ART). This brings motorized masking for screens up to 20' high and around 40' wide, down to 4:3 ratio, and all the audio and video benefits that come with our Enlightor materials. It might have also been named for a discriminating home theater AVSer, too.

We have a lot of other incredible demos going on with other partners as well:

* Sound Room 4: Klipsch. They have new architectural lines coming out.
* Sound Room 9: PMC. They were voted AVS Best of CEDIA, I think last year.
* Sound Room 19: Trinnov / Triad / HTE, showing off our mid-sized TAM maskig screen. HTE used to build those Wisdom Rooms that are incredible. Fully fabricated from strongly engineered panels in Europe and shipped to here. It feels like someone's home. It's jarring the difference in aesthetics, acoustics and personal experience they provide you stepping from the trade show floor.
* Booth 2549: Kaleidescape, showing off our small-sized TRIM masking screen and their automation capabilities.
* Meeting Room 401: Wisdom Audio, showing off a massive fixed frame. If anyone remembers their large-scale demo in 2013, Gary Reber from Widescreen Review said it was the most impressive large-scale home theater demo he's ever witnessed. If you missed out on that, you don't want to miss this. So far it's adding up to $863,570 worth of some of the best kit you can experience. From their press release:

_This twenty-seat, three-row theater will feature a 13.7.8 Immersive audio presentation using the
bi-amplified Wisdom Audio LS4i Reference Planar Magnetic Driver Line Source Loudspeaker
for all thirteen layer-one channels. In addition to the LS4i, the system includes eight Sage Series
Point 2 V2 Point Source Loudspeakers for height channels, and seven STS RTL (Regenerative
Transmission Line®) Subwoofers.

The Front LCR and Subwoofers will be driven by Wisdom Audio SA-3 500 Watt per channel
amplifiers, while all other channels will be supported by Wisdom Audio’s new SA-8, a high
current eight-channel power amplifier, 200 Watt per channel, delivering a combined 20,000
(yes, twenty thousand!) Watts of power. Two SC-3 System controllers will allow 28 channel of
Dirac live room correction.

Kaleidescape 4K player will provide a scripted 4K content to a Trinnov Altitude 32 to render 22
channels of audio. Rounding the demonstration, a Barco Loki native widescreen 4K video
projector paired with a Seymour Screen Excellence 230-inch wide (250" diagonal) 2.4:1 acoustically transparent video screen._

If anyone needs a show pass, let me know. The booth babe slots are filling up fast, though.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Iceberg62

chriscmore said:


> The Glacier screens are still Lambertian...
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I did reach out to Jon. While I'm waiting to hear from him, I appreciate your insight. Do you think I could go up to a 120" wide screen (137ish diagonal) and go with the gray screen? Or would you recommend white at that point? I hung the projector last night and it's projecting onto a flat black wall and the image isn't horrible with the ceiling cans on so I'm thinking maybe gray...but you make the screens so I figured whatever you recommend is the way I'll go. Here's a pic of 120" wide on my wall. I'm still building out the room so please ignore the tables full of tools, etc. I'm also building the media console so I can adjust the dimensions to whatever I need so that isn't an issue. I have Klipsch RF7 III towers that will go in the front corners so this leaves plenty of room for them.

Thank you again for your time and insight.


----------



## chriscmore

Iceberg62 said:


> I did reach out to Jon. While I'm waiting to hear from him, I appreciate your insight. Do you think I could go up to a 120" wide screen (137ish diagonal) and go with the gray screen? Or would you recommend white at that point? I hung the projector last night and it's projecting onto a flat black wall and the image isn't horrible with the ceiling cans on so I'm thinking maybe gray...but you make the screens so I figured whatever you recommend is the way I'll go. Here's a pic of 120" wide on my wall. I'm still building out the room so please ignore the tables full of tools, etc. I'm also building the media console so I can adjust the dimensions to whatever I need so that isn't an issue. I have Klipsch RF7 III towers that will go in the front corners so this leaves plenty of room for them.
> 
> Thank you again for your time and insight.


Some personal preference is at hand, whether you're a bigger fan of hotter whites or deeper blacks. I tend to require as dark a black floor as possible, so if it were me with that projector, I'd stay with the gray screen. I think it would result in the most dynamic looking image, considering the reflective bits in the room and projector power. There are others that like torching their eyes, so I'd vote white for them.

I like to remind people that HDR is not a brightness format. It's a dynamic one, and the most dynamic images start with the darkest blacks. Here is a link from Kris Deering, explaining as such: 




Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Iceberg62

I ordered samples that should be here shortly so that should help me decide. Thank you again for the insight. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

We're expanding and finding all kinds of screens that are boxed up waiting for new homes. Check out the B Stock Basement, there are quite a few oddballs and smoking deals to be had. http://www.seymourav.com/store.asp

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## vp4lifehva

I am thinking about purchasing a 2.39:1 retractable screen and wall mount it over my current 16:9 fixed screen. Worst case scenario, will a having a ceiling fan on full speed cause any noticeable movement to the screen?


----------



## asharma

chriscmore said:


> We're expanding and finding all kinds of screens that are boxed up waiting for new homes. Check out the B Stock Basement, there are quite a few oddballs and smoking deals to be had. http://www.seymourav.com/store.asp
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hi Chris, do u ship to Canada?


----------



## chriscmore

asharma said:


> Hi Chris, do u ship to Canada?


We do. The shipping is a tad bit more, but let Jon know what you're interested in, and your postal code, and he can do some math.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

vp4lifehva said:


> I am thinking about purchasing a 2.39:1 retractable screen and wall mount it over my current 16:9 fixed screen. Worst case scenario, will a having a ceiling fan on full speed cause any noticeable movement to the screen?


I can't imagine, no. It's so heavy that if you can possibly move it with a ceiling fan, it'd be terrible acoustically: like a rotary diffuser. I've never been bothered by ceiling fan acoustics, although I wouldn't run one in a home theater and I have friends that go nuts when any music is playing and they're on.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## asharma

chriscmore said:


> I can't imagine, no. It's so heavy that if you can possibly move it with a ceiling fan, it'd be terrible acoustically: like a rotary diffuser. I've never been bothered by ceiling fan acoustics, although I wouldn't run one in a home theater and I have friends that go nuts when any music is playing and they're on.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris, Any visible roller marks from ANY distance on your tab tensioned electric?


----------



## BIC2

*UF or XD; CIH or CIW?*

Have an Epson 6050 with a 16'-6" throw giving me a max width of 147" as shown in the picture. Viewing distance is 11'. Ceiling is 10' and soffit is about 9'. Wall width is 21'. Trying to decide between Center Screen UF & XD as well as CIH or CIW. The scope screen will be the same size either way as outlined in white. The question is do I go for the full 16:9 in green at 147x83 or the reduced 16:9 as shown in blue (110x62). 

On the wall, we've watched the full-size 16:9 for about an hours worth of Planet Earth II two different times, size seems OK. Guess I should try out some sports. I can raise the screen several inches from what's shown for better viewing from the second row. Maybe lower 1' blocked from back row in full 16:9.

Given the dark gray Sherwin-Williams 6257 Gilbralter flat walls, do I need the black backing? I'll take the gloss speaker grills off the LCRs. As far as the blocker panels, I'm not keen on messing with them, and if I did top & bottom, they'll be pretty big, but would stay up most of the time. Most use will be movies, but some sports. Thanks for any input.


----------



## Low Profile

BIC2 said:


> Have an Epson 6050 with a 16'-6" throw giving me a max width of 147" as shown in the picture. Viewing distance is 11'. Ceiling is 10' and soffit is about 9'. Wall width is 21'. Trying to decide between Center Screen UF & XD as well as CIH or CIW. The scope screen will be the same size either way as outlined in white. The question is do I go for the full 16:9 in green at 147x83 or the reduced 16:9 as shown in blue (110x62).
> 
> On the wall, we've watched the full-size 16:9 for about an hours worth of Planet Earth II two different times, size seems OK. Guess I should try out some sports. I can raise the screen several inches from what's shown for better viewing from the second row. Maybe lower 1' blocked from back row in full 16:9.
> 
> Given the dark gray Sherwin-Williams 6257 Gilbralter flat walls, do I need the black backing? I'll take the gloss speaker grills off the LCRs. As far as the blocker panels, I'm not keen on messing with them, and if I did top & bottom, they'll be pretty big, but would stay up most of the time. Most use will be movies, but some sports. Thanks for any input.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Why not the best of both worlds? Perhaps go 1.78:1 adding their magnetic horizontal masking panels above and below. Keep the masking panels in place for a CIH setup. For those times that you want to increase the size of 1.78:1 content and aspect ratios south of that just remove the panels. In fact, you could even add vertical masking panels to the mix then, i.e. masking in from 1.78:1 to 1.33:1 for example.


----------



## Ladeback

BIC2 said:


> Have an Epson 6050 with a 16'-6" throw giving me a max width of 147" as shown in the picture. Viewing distance is 11'. Ceiling is 10' and soffit is about 9'. Wall width is 21'. Trying to decide between Center Screen UF & XD as well as CIH or CIW. The scope screen will be the same size either way as outlined in white. The question is do I go for the full 16:9 in green at 147x83 or the reduced 16:9 as shown in blue (110x62).
> 
> On the wall, we've watched the full-size 16:9 for about an hours worth of Planet Earth II two different times, size seems OK. Guess I should try out some sports. I can raise the screen several inches from what's shown for better viewing from the second row. Maybe lower 1' blocked from back row in full 16:9.
> 
> Given the dark gray Sherwin-Williams 6257 Gilbralter flat walls, do I need the black backing? I'll take the gloss speaker grills off the LCRs. As far as the blocker panels, I'm not keen on messing with them, and if I did top & bottom, they'll be pretty big, but would stay up most of the time. Most use will be movies, but some sports. Thanks for any input.


Have you been reclined when watching the 16:9 in green at 147x83 screen? Make sure when you are reclined your feet aren't in the way of the bottom of the screen. I remember @carp talking about this on his screen. You ought to check it out. His screen is 147 inches wide, 61 inches tall, and 158 inches diagonal at 2.35:1. The formula I have been using for screen height to distance is to either divide the seating distance by 2 to 2.25. At 11'/2=66" in height and would give you a 170" 2.35:1, so 156" wide by 66" tall. Here is a calculator I use to compare screen sizes.

http://www.displaywars.com/170-inch-235x1-vs-135,77-inch-16x9


----------



## BIC2

Trying to decide between Center Screen UF & XD. Apparently, over/under 11 ft is a determining factor. I'm right at 11 ft. With an Epson 6050, doing a 147" wide CIW 16:9, 16'-6" throw. Two rows of 5 seats across is also about 147" wide. According to _Projector Central_ calculator, the UF (1.0 gain) will give me 31 fL and the XD (1.2 gain) would give me 37fL.

The Seymour website has a pub called, _AccuCal Screen Projection Material Report_, that states about the UF, "This material would be best for 9 foot or greater viewing distance. At ten feet this material looked very good. Treble was 2 db down at 20 kHz compared to the level at 2 kHz. The black backing added another 1 db loss at 20 kHz. The audio response effect was a relatively smooth loss from 2kHz to 20kHz. This material is only recommended from 8 to 9 feet because of light loss." Also, the 2016 report lists the UF as 0.8 gain published & tested and the XD as 1.2 published & 0.94 tested. I think I want 1.0 gain. UF is currently published at 1.0.

The distance sounds contradictory unless they're saying just the black backing is recommended for 8 to 9 ft only. It's not clear.

The DIY XD cost is 40% more than the DIY UF. But, finished UF & XD frames are the same price on the website. This doesn't make sense to me.

I was hoping @chriscmorewould respond to my Post 3791. I also emailed Jon a few days ago. Guess they're busy at CEDIA, but I'd like to get this thing ordered. Thanks.


----------



## asharma

BIC2 said:


> Trying to decide between Center Screen UF & XD. Apparently, over/under 11 ft is a determining factor. I'm right at 11 ft. With an Epson 6050, doing a 147" wide CIW 16:9, 16'-6" throw. Two rows of 5 seats across is also about 147" wide. According to _Projector Central_ calculator, the UF (1.0 gain) will give me 31 fL and the XD (1.2 gain) would give me 37fL.
> 
> The Seymour website has a pub called, _AccuCal Screen Projection Material Report_, that states about the UF, "This material would be best for 9 foot or greater viewing distance. At ten feet this material looked very good. Treble was 2 db down at 20 kHz compared to the level at 2 kHz. The black backing added another 1 db loss at 20 kHz. The audio response effect was a relatively smooth loss from 2kHz to 20kHz. This material is only recommended from 8 to 9 feet because of light loss." Also, the 2016 report lists the UF as 0.8 gain published & tested and the XD as 1.2 published & 0.94 tested. I think I want 1.0 gain. UF is currently published at 1.0.
> 
> The distance sounds contradictory unless they're saying just the black backing is recommended for 8 to 9 ft only. It's not clear.
> 
> The DIY XD cost is 40% more than the DIY UF. But, finished UF & XD frames are the same price on the website. This doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> I was hoping @chriscmorewould respond to my Post 3791. I also emailed Jon a few days ago. Guess they're busy at CEDIA, but I'd like to get this thing ordered. Thanks.


Yes they must be busy, I’ve been waiting for a quote for almost 2 weeks now...business must be good....


----------



## chriscmore

BIC2 said:


> Trying to decide between Center Screen UF & XD. Apparently, over/under 11 ft is a determining factor. I'm right at 11 ft. With an Epson 6050, doing a 147" wide CIW 16:9, 16'-6" throw. Two rows of 5 seats across is also about 147" wide. According to _Projector Central_ calculator, the UF (1.0 gain) will give me 31 fL and the XD (1.2 gain) would give me 37fL.
> 
> The Seymour website has a pub called, _AccuCal Screen Projection Material Report_, that states about the UF, "This material would be best for 9 foot or greater viewing distance. At ten feet this material looked very good. Treble was 2 db down at 20 kHz compared to the level at 2 kHz. The black backing added another 1 db loss at 20 kHz. The audio response effect was a relatively smooth loss from 2kHz to 20kHz. This material is only recommended from 8 to 9 feet because of light loss." Also, the 2016 report lists the UF as 0.8 gain published & tested and the XD as 1.2 published & 0.94 tested. I think I want 1.0 gain. UF is currently published at 1.0.
> 
> The distance sounds contradictory unless they're saying just the black backing is recommended for 8 to 9 ft only. It's not clear.
> 
> The DIY XD cost is 40% more than the DIY UF. But, finished UF & XD frames are the same price on the website. This doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> I was hoping @chriscmorewould respond to my Post 3791. I also emailed Jon a few days ago. Guess they're busy at CEDIA, but I'd like to get this thing ordered. Thanks.


Sorry for the delays. Jon and I are at CEDIA.

For 11' viewing, I would choose the smaller blue box, but increased just enough for the image area to completely cover your L/R. Maybe 114" wide? Since everything is made custom, you can specify whatever you like to the 0.1" resolution. We don't charge extra but simply round up to the next standard size. At 11', even the 110"w is a very immersive 45 degrees. I'd also definitely choose the UF since you have plenty of light power. Since the secondary black backing layer is a bit of money, the cheapest option would be to cover your wall with some black speaker grill material. Even though your paint is dark, paint is surprisingly reflective. 

I'll try to hit more as I'm able.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

asharma said:


> Yes they must be busy, I’ve been waiting for a quote for almost 2 weeks now...business must be good....


Are you emailing with Jon or Jenna? If so, I can throw something at them. If you're waiting on me I'm sorry. I'm a bit blitzed and delinquent currently.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## asharma

chriscmore said:


> Are you emailing with Jon or Jenna? If so, I can throw something at them. If you're waiting on me I'm sorry. I'm a bit blitzed and delinquent currently.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Yep, Jenna has had all the info for a while now...


----------



## StevenC56

vp4lifehva said:


> I am thinking about purchasing a 2.39:1 retractable screen and wall mount it over my current 16:9 fixed screen. Worst case scenario, will a having a ceiling fan on full speed cause any noticeable movement to the screen?


We have a ceiling fan in our HT, and even with the fan on high I can't see any movement on our screen. It's a Centerstage XD 2:35 105" wide retractable.



asharma said:


> Thanks Chris, Any visible roller marks from ANY distance on your tab tensioned electric?


None at all that we can see on ours.


----------



## Krbass

Just got a large roll of the XD off the classifieds. I was planning on a spandex screen and have a plan for a frame. What do you guys recommend for a diy frame for the XD? Could I just use the same plans I have for the spandex? 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jedirun

Krbass said:


> Just got a large roll of the XD off the classifieds. I was planning on a spandex screen and have a plan for a frame. What do you guys recommend for a diy frame for the XD? Could I just use the same plans I have for the spandex?
> 
> Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


I used some 80/20 extruded aluminum along with grommets and O-rings. Just make sure you have internal braces as it takes a fair amount of tension to get it tight.


----------



## Krbass

Jedirun said:


> I used some 80/20 extruded aluminum along with grommets and O-rings. Just make sure you have internal braces as it takes a fair amount of tension to get it tight.


I've been looking on the forums and found a few older threads that have all broken images. I'll check those out, about how many did you use all the way around? 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidK442

Krbass said:


> Just got a large roll of the XD off the classifieds. I was planning on a spandex screen and have a plan for a frame. What do you guys recommend for a diy frame for the XD? Could I just use the same plans I have for the spandex?
> 
> Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


If your frame is wood the simplest solution is to staple the material in place. Others have used window screen track and spline so that it is more easily removed.


----------



## Mike Johnson 3

DavidK442 said:


> If your frame is wood the simplest solution is to staple the material in place. Others have used window screen track and spline so that it is more easily removed.


I wonder how many people use fabric track for their screen, like what we use for acoustic fabric in studios and theaters. Would be a nice clean install where the non-screened area on the front wall can all blend in on the same flat plane as the screen.


----------



## NIN74

I'm a very happy owner of a 130" 2.10:1 UF retractabe screen. The only thing I regret is that I should have added masking. 

So now I wonder, have anyone done a good DIY side-masking for a retractable Seymour screen?


----------



## Krbass

Jedirun said:


> I used some 80/20 extruded aluminum along with grommets and O-rings. Just make sure you have internal braces as it takes a fair amount of tension to get it tight.


Just hooked up with a local dealer of 80/20 T slotted. At the shop they had so many options for fastening. I'll post pics as soon as I start the build. 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## howiee

Krbass said:


> Just hooked up with a local dealer of 80/20 T slotted. At the shop they had so many options for fastening. I'll post pics as soon as I start the build.
> 
> Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


I'm very interested how this pans out!


----------



## Tedd

Some 80/20 T Slot used in this application. Might be of interest or inspiration.


----------



## Mike Johnson 3

For the past few weeks I have been a proud owner of a 115" wide (125" diagonal) 2.40:1 XD screen with masking panels. 
JVC NX7, Paladin DCR lens, throw distance of 16.5', dark fabric front wall, aged wood for sidewalls+ceiling.

I was one of those who used to ponder which acoustically transparent screen to get, or if the weave of the XD is more visible than the UF. I decided to just go for the XD as I wanted good peak brightness for HDR content and wasn't willing the take the hit of the lower gain UF material.

Regarding the weave visibility, for me it's noticeable especially at a few feet from the screen and gradually fades away nicely by my 10.5' viewing distance. If I wanted to obsess and look for it, I could focus on it and notice it at 20 feet away. Does it bother me? No, not at all. When I'm watching content it has never distracted me nor has it been mentioned by a single person who has visited my home theater in the past few weeks. (I believe it's a learned issue, less so an experienced one.)

Regarding the picture quality, best HDR and 3D I've ever seen in my life!

I've owned approximately 5 screens over the past decade and have a stack of samples from various manufacturers. At this point in time I feel this is THE best option for a balance of brightness, contrast, sharpness, acoustic transparency and $$$$. The other weave samples I used were far from color accurate and dim with lower contrast. I was really amazed with how deep the blacks are and how bright the brights are with such a good sounding screen. I'm VERY relieved I didn't go with the dimmer spandex or the microperf.

Thank you SeymourAV for the beautiful new screen! My home theater is FINALLY complete!
(My wife finally believes me when I say "it's complete!" because it just looks and sounds that amazing!)

ps. Jenna was very helpful and knowledgable as was Dan whom I spoke with when I decided to increase my screen size. Seymour truly creates great screens. As a business owner myself, I hope to see more American businesses continue to make great products on our home turf for all the years ahead!


----------



## howiee

Mike Johnson 3 said:


> For the past few weeks I have been a proud owner of a 115" wide (125" diagonal) 2.40:1 XD screen with masking panels.
> JVC NX7, Paladin DCR lens, throw distance of 16.5', dark fabric front wall, aged wood for sidewalls+ceiling.
> 
> I was one of those who used to ponder which acoustically transparent screen to get, or if the weave of the XD is more visible than the UF. I decided to just go for the XD as I wanted good peak brightness for HDR content and wasn't willing the take the hit of the lower gain UF material.
> 
> Regarding the weave visibility, for me it's noticeable especially at a few feet from the screen and gradually fades away nicely by my 10.5' viewing distance. If I wanted to obsess and look for it, I could focus on it and notice it at 20 feet away. Does it bother me? No, not at all. When I'm watching content it has never distracted me nor has it been mentioned by a single person who has visited my home theater in the past few weeks. (I believe it's a learned issue, less so an experienced one.)
> 
> Regarding the picture quality, best HDR and 3D I've ever seen in my life!
> 
> I've owned approximately 5 screens over the past decade and have a stack of samples from various manufacturers. At this point in time I feel this is THE best option for a balance of brightness, contrast, sharpness, acoustic transparency and $$$$. The other weave samples I used were far from color accurate and dim with lower contrast. I was really amazed with how deep the blacks are and how bright the brights are with such a good sounding screen. I'm VERY relieved I didn't go with the dimmer spandex or the microperf.
> 
> Thank you SeymourAV for the beautiful new screen! My home theater is FINALLY complete!
> (My wife finally believes me when I say "it's complete!" because it just looks and sounds that amazing!)
> 
> ps. Jenna was very helpful and knowledgable as was Dan whom I spoke with when I decided to increase my screen size. Seymour truly creates great screens. As a business owner myself, I hope to see more American businesses continue to make great products on our home turf for all the years ahead!


Cheers for the report and i'm glad you're happy with the screen! That's a mean combo screen/pj combo. Do you mind sharing your primary viewing distance?


----------



## skylarlove1999

howiee said:


> Cheers for the report and i'm glad you're happy with the screen! That's a mean combo screen/pj combo. Do you mind sharing your primary viewing distance?


10.5 ft. He stated it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## howiee

skylarlove1999 said:


> 10.5 ft. He stated it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Ah yeah, my bad.


----------



## skylarlove1999

howiee said:


> Ah yeah, my bad.


No worries. I have asked a ton of questions that have already been answered . I missed it the first time and was going to ask it myself but now before I ask my questions I read everything twice, sometimes three times . 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Luminated67

skylarlove1999 said:


> No worries. I have asked a ton of questions that have already been answered . I missed it the first time and was going to ask it myself but now before I ask my questions I read everything twice, sometimes three times .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


And even then we still miss it.


----------



## tbraden32

Mike Johnson 3 said:


> For the past few weeks I have been a proud owner of a 115" wide (125" diagonal) 2.40:1 XD screen with masking panels.
> 
> JVC NX7, Paladin DCR lens, throw distance of 16.5', dark fabric front wall, aged wood for sidewalls+ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> I was one of those who used to ponder which acoustically transparent screen to get, or if the weave of the XD is more visible than the UF. I decided to just go for the XD as I wanted good peak brightness for HDR content and wasn't willing the take the hit of the lower gain UF material.
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the weave visibility, for me it's noticeable especially at a few feet from the screen and gradually fades away nicely by my 10.5' viewing distance. If I wanted to obsess and look for it, I could focus on it and notice it at 20 feet away. Does it bother me? No, not at all. When I'm watching content it has never distracted me nor has it been mentioned by a single person who has visited my home theater in the past few weeks. (I believe it's a learned issue, less so an experienced one.)
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the picture quality, best HDR and 3D I've ever seen in my life!
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned approximately 5 screens over the past decade and have a stack of samples from various manufacturers. At this point in time I feel this is THE best option for a balance of brightness, contrast, sharpness, acoustic transparency and $$$$. The other weave samples I used were far from color accurate and dim with lower contrast. I was really amazed with how deep the blacks are and how bright the brights are with such a good sounding screen. I'm VERY relieved I didn't go with the dimmer spandex or the microperf.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you SeymourAV for the beautiful new screen! My home theater is FINALLY complete!
> 
> (My wife finally believes me when I say "it's complete!" because it just looks and sounds that amazing!)
> 
> 
> 
> ps. Jenna was very helpful and knowledgable as was Dan whom I spoke with when I decided to increase my screen size. Seymour truly creates great screens. As a business owner myself, I hope to see more American businesses continue to make great products on our home turf for all the years ahead!




Great info!! Been trying to decide on this exact decision out myself!! Almost same specs, just got my NX7 from Mike and have my samples hung on my black wall- just need to get a source hooked up to the JVC to shoot some sample images.


----------



## Krbass

I'm curious how the XD compares to spandex. I will have to do some testing. 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## gil393

I started with spandex and then moved to XD. XD is sharper, brighter, more neutral, more expensive. I found little audible difference. Testing showed slightly more high frequency rolloff with XD which was easily eq'd. Front row is 10-11'. Those with exceptional eyesight who know to look for the pattern, ie my daughter, must sit in the 2nd or 3rd row. No one else knows to notice it or, like me, can't see it even when looking.

If the money difference is important and you have sufficient lumens, or are sitting closer than 10' then spandex might be a good choice. Otherwise, I think XD is an excellent screen material.


----------



## DavidK442

gil393 said:


> I started with spandex and then moved to XD. XD is sharper, brighter, more neutral, more expensive. I found little audible difference. Testing showed slightly more high frequency rolloff with XD which was easily eq'd. Front row is 10-11'. Those with exceptional eyesight who know to look for the pattern, ie my daughter, must sit in the 2nd or 3rd row. No one else knows to notice it or, like me, can't see it even when looking.
> 
> If the money difference is important and you have sufficient lumens, or are sitting closer than 10' then spandex might be a good choice. Otherwise, I think XD is an excellent screen material.


An excellent comparison and pretty much bang on with my own observations.
Unfortunately I'm in that "less than 10 feet" category.


----------



## Mike Johnson 3

DavidK442 said:


> An excellent comparison and pretty much bang on with my own observations.
> Unfortunately I'm in that "less than 10 feet" category.


After my experiences I couldn't live with anything other than the XD and I'd do anything to move my seating to whatever distance is comfortable. 10.5 was right on the mark for me.

In contrast to the ALR sparkle, even as a very picky person I'd consider the XD weave something I could live with if I were closer to the screen.

Though I can understand the spandex vs. UF debate, spandex is a complete no-go after you see what XD can do!


----------



## Krbass

Yeah, I'll be 11' from a 122" screen. I have the spandex and the XD. 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## avsBuddy

Does Seymour run Black Friday specials?


----------



## chriscmore

avsBuddy said:


> Does Seymour run Black Friday specials?


We don't, sorry. There are a ton of B-stock screens listed, however, so there are some good deals on admittedly odd screen types.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Imp117

Mike Johnson 3 said:


> For the past few weeks I have been a proud owner of a 115" wide (125" diagonal) 2.40:1 XD screen with masking panels.
> JVC NX7, Paladin DCR lens, throw distance of 16.5', dark fabric front wall, aged wood for sidewalls+ceiling.
> 
> I was one of those who used to ponder which acoustically transparent screen to get, or if the weave of the XD is more visible than the UF. I decided to just go for the XD as I wanted good peak brightness for HDR content and wasn't willing the take the hit of the lower gain UF material.
> 
> Regarding the weave visibility, for me it's noticeable especially at a few feet from the screen and gradually fades away nicely by my 10.5' viewing distance. If I wanted to obsess and look for it, I could focus on it and notice it at 20 feet away. Does it bother me? No, not at all. When I'm watching content it has never distracted me nor has it been mentioned by a single person who has visited my home theater in the past few weeks. (I believe it's a learned issue, less so an experienced one.)
> 
> Regarding the picture quality, best HDR and 3D I've ever seen in my life!



This review has me fairly convinced of the direction I should take with very similar specs. I'll be building a 120" wide screen in 2.40:1 with the Premier frame. Online, the part number is "F120," but speced at 2.35:1.

I imagine a phone call got everything sorted, but were you able to simply state your preference to 2.40 aspect and Seymour took care of the rest with dimension calcs and properly matching masking panels?

Have you removed and refitted the masking panels a couple times to see how easy it was or how well they fit? 

My viewing distance will be 11' and like you, I want all the gain possible. I first considered the UF but if I don't fixate on a constant white image, perhaps I won't notice the weave pattern of the XD.


----------



## Mike Johnson 3

Imp117 said:


> This review has me fairly convinced of the direction I should take with very similar specs. I'll be building a 120" wide screen in 2.40:1 with the Premier frame. Online, the part number is "F120," but speced at 2.35:1.
> 
> I imagine a phone call got everything sorted, but were you able to simply state your preference to 2.40 aspect and Seymour took care of the rest with dimension calcs and properly matching masking panels?
> 
> Have you removed and refitted the masking panels a couple times to see how easy it was or how well they fit?
> 
> My viewing distance will be 11' and like you, I want all the gain possible. I first considered the UF but if I don't fixate on a constant white image, perhaps I won't notice the weave pattern of the XD.


The phone call was essential as they could quickly build the quote with all of the correct details for my order. Previously, I had only briefly looked at the website options for frames.

The masking panels fit great! I've removed and reapplied them dozens of times and they magnetically suck into place perfectly every time. They've got the fitment down like clockwork.

Like you said about not fixating on a constant white image is exactly true. Watching content I've only noticed the weave a very few number of times, but I think the trick is that the pattern is throughout the screen and doesn't hit the mind as a "flaw" in the way that a vertical seem jumps out (as I've noticed at several commercial theaters). I do suppose my projector+lens combo is bright enough that the UF material would be bright enough in my room, but I still stand behind my great XD experiences thus far.

All in all I expect there are lots of happy Seymour customers as they surely deliver great screens!


----------



## Cla55clown

Should I go Matinee wide or Grey PS for 103" size in a *non light-controlled room (basement) with a short-ish throw distance (~11 feet)*? I can't find the price difference on the website and had planned on going with the precision frame. Projector is a bright Epson 3700 with plans to watch quite a few 3D movies. thanks!


----------



## avsBuddy

Matinee Wide is a better screen that will give you better blacks and color. Make sure that you throw distance is at least x1.4 of the screen width.


----------



## chriscmore

Cla55clown said:


> Should I go Matinee wide or Grey PS for 103" size in a *non light-controlled room (basement) with a short-ish throw distance (~11 feet)*? I can't find the price difference on the website and had planned on going with the precision frame. Projector is a bright Epson 3700 with plans to watch quite a few 3D movies. thanks!


We don't price per materials (yet), so just pick the packaging type and go from there. For the Matinee materials we do as standard, however, only recommend the unspliced Precision frame, so it does cost more for the freight trip instead of short-box ground. They're more reflective and less forgiving of a spliced top/bottom frame. Some people get unspliced on our Lambertian/scatter type screens (Center Stage, Glacier), so it's not necessarily a cost adder per se.

For moderate light control, I would recommend the Matinee Wide over the Glacier Gray PS. The Matinee Wide is super smooth for the dedicated room purists like me who otherwise hate the look of amped-up reflective screens, but still helps a great deal with some room lighting and lighter color surfaces. I used it at a CES with white ceilings, ivory walls, and a few lights on. The Glacier Gray PS is what I'd consider if you said you DID have light control but still had light color surfaces in the room and pushing a really short throw or UST.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## kungfuman

Looking to build an AT screen for my new set up and came across xd screen which I’m nearly going to go ahead with. A couple questions which probably has been covered already but struggling to go through over 128 pages 

My seating distance is 13 feet which I think is ok and I shouldn’t notice the weave pattern?
I seen enlightor 4k mentioned a few times here which is a more expensive screen material. Is the xd ok for 4k material?


----------



## Krbass

kungfuman said:


> Looking to build an AT screen for my new set up and came across xd screen which I’m nearly going to go ahead with. A couple questions which probably has been covered already but struggling to go through over 128 pages
> 
> 
> 
> My seating distance is 13 feet which I think is ok and I shouldn’t notice the weave pattern?
> 
> I seen enlightor 4k mentioned a few times here which is a more expensive screen material. Is the xd ok for 4k material?


The XD @11' looks amazing to me. Screen is 122" using a jvc X790. 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

kungfuman said:


> Looking to build an AT screen for my new set up and came across xd screen which I’m nearly going to go ahead with. A couple questions which probably has been covered already but struggling to go through over 128 pages
> 
> My seating distance is 13 feet which I think is ok and I shouldn’t notice the weave pattern?
> I seen enlightor 4k mentioned a few times here which is a more expensive screen material. Is the xd ok for 4k material?


Keep in mind we happily send out samples for folks to evaluate in their spaces, or to compare to other materials. At 13' you should be fine with the XD, or if you are pushing a smaller screen and don't need as much gain then the UF is designed for seating up to 6'. If you're going for a larger screen or otherwise stretching the output of your projector, then the XD would demonstrate its advantages.

The Enlightor-Neo is the latest material in the no-minimum-distance application. It's much more costly because it's imported, and available through the CEDIA dealers and installers. If you're doing your own installation, then the consumer-direct Seymour AV brand is where you should stay.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## kafisatz

Hello everyone
I am about to build my own frame with seymour centerstage uf material. 
My speakers are recessed in a fake wall which I have covered with black cotton (except for the speakers of course! The xtz cinema speakers simply have the grilles on). 
Now I think there will be about 1 or 2 inches of air behind the screen material and the black cotton „wall“. 
Do I need any additional backing layer (just behind the screen material) to avoid unwanted reflections?


----------



## chriscmore

kafisatz said:


> Hello everyone
> I am about to build my own frame with seymour centerstage uf material.
> My speakers are recessed in a fake wall which I have covered with black cotton (except for the speakers of course! The xtz cinema speakers simply have the grilles on).
> Now I think there will be about 1 or 2 inches of air behind the screen material and the black cotton „wall“.
> Do I need any additional backing layer (just behind the screen material) to avoid unwanted reflections?


The black cotton you installed onto your baffle wall will be fine for light absorption and you won't need a secondary black backing layer. If it's audio you're worried about, our woven AT screens are far more acoustically transparent than the 90% non-AT perfed vinyl screens, so you don't need to worry about absorbing back wave reflections. I would try to lose the speaker grills though if they have metal or plastic mesh in them.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## kafisatz

Thank you Chris. I think the grilles are fine (no metal or plastic except for the rim which not covering the drivers).


----------



## elmalloc

How wide of a seymour screen can we motorize? I am interested in 2.35.


----------



## chriscmore

elmalloc said:


> How wide of a seymour screen can we motorize? I am interested in 2.35.


Assuming you mean retractable, I can build a caseless at about 160" wide image.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## elmalloc

chriscmore said:


> Assuming you mean retractable, I can build a caseless at about 160" wide image.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Great, thanks! Also, can I stuff some of your b-stock enlightor 4k material in there? (example: RF160HD-4K, Enlightor-4K with optional secondary black backing). Please PM me a price shipped to 44212. 

Thanks,
ELmO


----------



## chriscmore

elmalloc said:


> Great, thanks! Also, can I stuff some of your b-stock enlightor 4k material in there? (example: RF160HD-4K, Enlightor-4K with optional secondary black backing). Please PM me a price shipped to 44212.
> 
> Thanks,
> ELmO


We don't make retractables with the Enlightor-4K material. It was too temperamental, which lead to several of the specifications in developing the Enlightor-Neo.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Check out this latest AVS Home Theater of the Month. What's unusual is that while he did so much DIY, he didn't scrimp where it counted, and hired one of the best in the industry to design it from scratch. All blacked out, active monitors, wow, so much science and best practices went into this one. It won't be splashed in the CE Pro type magazines, where light colored surfaces, splashy LEDs, windows and ceiling mounted front speakers dominate (groan), but to anyone who wants to know how to create maximum home theater performance, this is a prime example.
https://www.avsforum.com/home-theater-month-contrast-theater/

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## StevenC56

chriscmore said:


> Check out this latest AVS Home Theater of the Month. What's unusual is that while he did so much DIY, he didn't scrimp where it counted, and hired one of the best in the industry to design it from scratch. All blacked out, active monitors, wow, so much science and best practices went into this one. It won't be splashed in the CE Pro type magazines, where light colored surfaces, splashy LEDs, windows and ceiling mounted front speakers dominate (groan), but to anyone who wants to know how to create maximum home theater performance, this is a prime example.
> https://www.avsforum.com/home-theater-month-contrast-theater/
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


That's one big room! Makes my 19' X 12' x 10' room look like a closet.


----------



## elmalloc

chriscmore said:


> Check out this latest AVS Home Theater of the Month. What's unusual is that while he did so much DIY, he didn't scrimp where it counted, and hired one of the best in the industry to design it from scratch. All blacked out, active monitors, wow, so much science and best practices went into this one. It won't be splashed in the CE Pro type magazines, where light colored surfaces, splashy LEDs, windows and ceiling mounted front speakers dominate (groan), but to anyone who wants to know how to create maximum home theater performance, this is a prime example.
> https://www.avsforum.com/home-theater-month-contrast-theater/
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Is it easy to hang a seymour screen frame like that (from cable?) I did it with another brand screen. I wonder if I could make something to pull it out of the way when not in use and drop it back into view at night. I have a nice view of my deck/water I'd like not to block from this room if possible (hence why I was looking into what motorized drop you could do).

Actually on closer inspection he is not hanging the screen from the ceiling at all, but my thought still exists lol.


----------



## chriscmore

elmalloc said:


> Is it easy to hang a seymour screen frame like that (from cable?) I did it with another brand screen. I wonder if I could make something to pull it out of the way when not in use and drop it back into view at night. I have a nice view of my deck/water I'd like not to block from this room if possible (hence why I was looking into what motorized drop you could do).
> 
> Actually on closer inspection he is not hanging the screen from the ceiling at all, but my thought still exists lol.


Yes, hanging eyebolts is a standard option for the Premier frame, and if you upgrade the Precision to a continuous top/bottom, at smaller sizes.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Jason Rich

I have been researching for my future home theater. A lot (Too much? My wife thinks so.). I think I have a pretty solid grasp on most things, but I do have some questions about screens and Foot Lamberts.

First, let me explain my situation. I have a rain that is 175" x 189" x 92" full light controlled. The screen area is 168" x 92" due to a little cutout in the corner of the room.

I have been looking at either a 150" or 135" 16:9 screen, but I am worried about the acoustical cost of having a speaker so close to a wall. This has led me down the AT screen rabbit hole. The 150" screen would give me 9" on either side of the screen, the 135 helps a little leaving me 15" on either side.

I am planning a row of seating at about 9.5' from the screen and 16' from the screen. I don't want a lecture on "you're sitting too close to a big screen..." I like that. I went to a movie and measured the screen angle where I chose to sit - 60 degrees.

The projector that currently piques my interest is the JVC DLA-NX5. Looks like that would give me 1600ish calibrated Lumens.

So I read that a fully light controlled room is ideal with 14-16 FL. I get that. I think maybe a little higher would help in order to help the demands of HDR? But I am not expert. My frustration starts when I see things like, "low ambient light" and "high ambient light." I'll obviously have the ability to have "no ambient light" and fully comprehend what that means. 

I do, however, have three kids and a (limited) social life. I can imagine using the theater room to entertain and do a Super Bowl party, or kid's birthday party, or just have friends over. Obviously I'd want SOME light for social occasions. So with lights on so people can drink beer or juice boxes and eat things and see each other, am I looking at low ambient light? How many FL do I need?

I'm figuring high bulb for lights on, low bulb for dark... Right?

I tend to think I'll need all the gain I can get for such a large screen, therefore should go with something like the XD, but the tighter weave of the UF sounds beneficial.

I know I should get samples before buying, I get it. But I need to know how much gain I need before investing in sound equipment. If I need more gain I'll but floor speakers, If 1.0 gain is enough I'll go AT with in-wall speakers. Any help is appreciated.


----------



## Bittermidget

Jason Rich said:


> I have been researching for my future home theater. A lot (Too much? My wife thinks so.). I think I have a pretty solid grasp on most things, but I do have some questions about screens and Foot Lamberts.
> 
> First, let me explain my situation. I have a rain that is 175" x 189" x 92" full light controlled. The screen area is 168" x 92" due to a little cutout in the corner of the room.
> 
> I have been looking at either a 150" or 135" 16:9 screen, but I am worried about the acoustical cost of having a speaker so close to a wall. This has led me down the AT screen rabbit hole. The 150" screen would give me 9" on either side of the screen, the 135 helps a little leaving me 15" on either side.
> 
> I am planning a row of seating at about 9.5' from the screen and 16' from the screen. I don't want a lecture on "you're sitting too close to a big screen..." I like that. I went to a movie and measured the screen angle where I chose to sit - 60 degrees.
> 
> The projector that currently piques my interest is the JVC DLA-NX5. Looks like that would give me 1600ish calibrated Lumens.
> 
> So I read that a fully light controlled room is ideal with 14-16 FL. I get that. I think maybe a little higher would help in order to help the demands of HDR? But I am not expert. My frustration starts when I see things like, "low ambient light" and "high ambient light." I'll obviously have the ability to have "no ambient light" and fully comprehend what that means.
> 
> I do, however, have three kids and a (limited) social life. I can imagine using the theater room to entertain and do a Super Bowl party, or kid's birthday party, or just have friends over. Obviously I'd want SOME light for social occasions. So with lights on so people can drink beer or juice boxes and eat things and see each other, am I looking at low ambient light? How many FL do I need?
> 
> I'm figuring high bulb for lights on, low bulb for dark... Right?
> 
> I tend to think I'll need all the gain I can get for such a large screen, therefore should go with something like the XD, but the tighter weave of the UF sounds beneficial.
> 
> I know I should get samples before buying, I get it. But I need to know how much gain I need before investing in sound equipment. If I need more gain I'll but floor speakers, If 1.0 gain is enough I'll go AT with in-wall speakers. Any help is appreciated.


For some perspective, I have a JVC with similar lumen output, a 105" 2.40:1 Centerstage UF screen, and matte black ceilings, projecting from about 13 feet. For this smaller screen size with SDR content, the dark room performance is superb even in low lamp and it does not struggle for lumens. HDR is a different story, even in high lamp. It is still quite enjoyable, but the UF is a negative gain screen (0.8) and it limits HDR brightness quite a bit. Projector was calibrated by Chad B and he got all he could out of it for HDR.

You're looking at a 150" wide 16:9 screen with XD material. XD is very close to a 1.0 gain so that helps, but the size screen you're considering with that projector will probably put you in a similar situation where you will have satisfactory SDR output, but won't have awe-inspiring HDR light output. That is a lot of screen to fill. I personally think you could be completely happy with the 135" and XD material which should give you an image with better "pop" vs. the 150".

When friends are over and room lights are present, I would suspect sports or other events would still be sharp, enjoyable, and such, but don't expect to wow anyone with contrast performance or critical viewing. That's just the nature of the beast when light is present, especially with a lower light output source.


----------



## BIC2

*16:9 Masking Panels*

Epson 6050 with an AT CenterStage XD; 16:9, 130" wide, 73" high. I had magnets for masking panels pre-installed. I'm less than satisfied with the gray bars top & bottom. Sometimes they're OK, sometimes not. My wife doesn't notice. I would get the dark velvet to match the frame, not the AT panels as the panels will not cover the speakers.

Trying to figure out if it's worth the $425 + $45 shipping for the masking panels. Borderline needing a step-stool to install each time. What are the thoughts from owners of such panels? Thanks.


----------



## Mahuzz13

BIC2 said:


> Epson 6050 with an AT CenterStage XD; 16:9, 130" wide, 73" high. I had magnets for masking panels pre-installed. I'm less than satisfied with the gray bars top & bottom. Sometimes they're OK, sometimes not. My wife doesn't notice. I would get the dark velvet to match the frame, not the AT panels as the panels will not cover the speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to figure out if it's worth the $425 + $45 shipping for the masking panels. Borderline needing a step-stool to install each time. What are the thoughts from owners of such panels? Thanks.




I have the XD diy material with a 130”w screen and I built my own panel for the top only since I am using the 130” w for scope viewing only and going down to 110”w for 16:9 because of bulkhead issues. But I put magnets but not enough magnets to hold my masking panel so I changed it to wrap around the top of the of the screen and it comes off and on very easily and I just put in front of the screen on the floor and you don’t even notice it there since the velvet just blends in 









With masking off 








With it on 

If you need to see the design of the masking panel I’ll post it tonight 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jason Rich

Bittermidget said:


> For some perspective, I have a JVC with similar lumen output, a 105" 2.40:1 Centerstage UF screen, and matte black ceilings, projecting from about 13 feet. For this smaller screen size with SDR content, the dark room performance is superb even in low lamp and it does not struggle for lumens. HDR is a different story, even in high lamp. It is still quite enjoyable, but the UF is a negative gain screen (0.8) and it limits HDR brightness quite a bit. Projector was calibrated by Chad B and he got all he could out of it for HDR.
> 
> You're looking at a 150" wide 16:9 screen with XD material. XD is very close to a 1.0 gain so that helps, but the size screen you're considering with that projector will probably put you in a similar situation where you will have satisfactory SDR output, but won't have awe-inspiring HDR light output. That is a lot of screen to fill. I personally think you could be completely happy with the 135" and XD material which should give you an image with better "pop" vs. the 150".
> 
> When friends are over and room lights are present, I would suspect sports or other events would still be sharp, enjoyable, and such, but don't expect to wow anyone with contrast performance or critical viewing. That's just the nature of the beast when light is present, especially with a lower light output source.


BM,

Thanks for the reply, using a calculator I put in your specs, then dropped the screen gain to .6 from .8 to simulate the 25-30% light reduction of low lamp mode. The calculator spit out about 26 fL. When I use a 1 gain 135" screen in the same calculator I get 27 fL for my setup.

So... you think you could run low lamp with socializing? I'm going to design the lighting to avoid light hitting the screen with hidden LED strips and dimmable shaded lamps.

Thanks again,

Jason


----------



## Bittermidget

Jason Rich said:


> BM,
> 
> Thanks for the reply, using a calculator I put in your specs, then dropped the screen gain to .6 from .8 to simulate the 25-30% light reduction of low lamp mode. The calculator spit out about 26 fL. When I use a 1 gain 135" screen in the same calculator I get 27 fL for my setup.
> 
> So... you think you could run low lamp with socializing? I'm going to design the lighting to avoid light hitting the screen with hidden LED strips and dimmable shaded lamps.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Jason


Light output for SDR content shouldn't be an issue as the JVC has lumens to spare in low lamp, even after calibration. I never use high lamp with SDR, even with some indirect lighting on. If you choose XD over UF, that will also give you a noticeable boost in brightness. 

My comments about light output were directed at HDR performance. Use those same calculations and compare fL to the minimum fL needed for convincing HDR and you'll see that it's an entirely different story. Having said that, I have not seen the HDR tone mapping on the new NX series, so it's possible there's improvement. 

Chris at Seymour can probably give you the best advice on pairing one of these new JVC to a screen material and size for your environment since they offer JVCs with calibrations based on screen material.


----------



## skylarlove1999

Jason Rich said:


> BM,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply, using a calculator I put in your specs, then dropped the screen gain to .6 from .8 to simulate the 25-30% light reduction of low lamp mode. The calculator spit out about 26 fL. When I use a 1 gain 135" screen in the same calculator I get 27 fL for my setup.
> 
> 
> 
> So... you think you could run low lamp with socializing? I'm going to design the lighting to avoid light hitting the screen with hidden LED strips and dimmable shaded lamps.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> 
> 
> Jason[/quote @chriscmore could you possibly weigh in on this subject ? Thanks in advance if you have the time.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jason Rich

Bittermidget said:


> Light output for SDR content shouldn't be an issue as the JVC has lumens to spare in low lamp, even after calibration. I never use high lamp with SDR, even with some indirect lighting on. If you choose XD over UF, that will also give you a noticeable boost in brightness.
> 
> My comments about light output were directed at HDR performance. Use those same calculations and compare fL to the minimum fL needed for convincing HDR and you'll see that it's an entirely different story. Having said that, I have not seen the HDR tone mapping on the new NX series, so it's possible there's improvement.
> 
> Chris at Seymour can probably give you the best advice on pairing one of these new JVC to a screen material and size for your environment since they offer JVCs with calibrations based on screen material.


Thanks. I have read that the new tone mapping is quite good. I fully understand about true HDR, 1000 nits is 292 fL. I don't think I'll be generating that.. lol. It makes me feel better knowing you keep it in low with ambient light. That's my major concern.

Jason


----------



## chriscmore

Jason Rich said:


> I have been looking at either a 150" or 135" 16:9 screen, but I am worried about the acoustical cost of having a speaker so close to a wall. This has led me down the AT screen rabbit hole. The 150" screen would give me 9" on either side of the screen, the 135 helps a little leaving me 15" on either side.
> 
> I am planning a row of seating at about 9.5' from the screen and 16' from the screen. I don't want a lecture on "you're sitting too close to a big screen..." I like that. I went to a movie and measured the screen angle where I chose to sit - 60 degrees.
> 
> The projector that currently piques my interest is the JVC DLA-NX5. Looks like that would give me 1600ish calibrated Lumens.
> 
> So I read that a fully light controlled room is ideal with 14-16 FL. I get that. I think maybe a little higher would help in order to help the demands of HDR? But I am not expert. My frustration starts when I see things like, "low ambient light" and "high ambient light." I'll obviously have the ability to have "no ambient light" and fully comprehend what that means.
> 
> I do, however, have three kids and a (limited) social life. I can imagine using the theater room to entertain and do a Super Bowl party, or kid's birthday party, or just have friends over. Obviously I'd want SOME light for social occasions. So with lights on so people can drink beer or juice boxes and eat things and see each other, am I looking at low ambient light? How many FL do I need?
> 
> I'm figuring high bulb for lights on, low bulb for dark... Right?
> 
> I tend to think I'll need all the gain I can get for such a large screen, therefore should go with something like the XD, but the tighter weave of the UF sounds beneficial.
> 
> I know I should get samples before buying, I get it. But I need to know how much gain I need before investing in sound equipment. If I need more gain I'll but floor speakers, If 1.0 gain is enough I'll go AT with in-wall speakers. Any help is appreciated.


Don't feel restricted to sizes. Every screen we make is custom to order, to the 0.1" resolution. So if an image width of 134.7" perfectly covers the baffles of some in-walls, for example, just tell us and we'll scale everything accordingly. As they say, you date the projector, you marry the screen. So, let's get it perfect.

For 9.5' seating I'd definitely go with the UF, as that was what it was designed for. The reduction in gain then would vote for a smaller image in the range you're considering or perhaps the higher-brightness Epson. I would encourage you to narrow the row spacing as much as possible. While you don't need the second row's feet touching the first row's heads, minimize that space as much as reasonable. This will greatly help you get a proper experience for both rows.

Keep in mind that HDR is not a brightness format; it's a dynamic format. Because of the eye's nonlinear response, maintaining a deep black level is actually more influential to a dynamic looking image than the level of the specular highlights. Here is Kris Deering's explanation: 




The UF will help with the Epson's black levels. Either projector would be able to have a "best image" calibrated mode and a "daytime" for sports or TV things that aren't as critical with the black levels. We're obviously biased toward the JVC line, but if you're maintaining your close seating and larger size range, I like the UF/Epson combo.

A huge advantage to AT screens is that you can follow best audio practices AND video practices independently. Locate the speakers where they're acoustically perfect and don't worry about the screen. It won't care. Similarly, locate the image up where it's most comfortable and size it appropriately cinematic for you, since it doesn't need to dodge any speakers. This is why we can get best demo awards is because we're optimizing each aspect of the experience instead of compromising both.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

skylarlove1999 said:


> Jason Rich said:
> 
> 
> 
> BM,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply, using a calculator I put in your specs, then dropped the screen gain to .6 from .8 to simulate the 25-30% light reduction of low lamp mode. The calculator spit out about 26 fL. When I use a 1 gain 135" screen in the same calculator I get 27 fL for my setup.
> 
> 
> 
> So... you think you could run low lamp with socializing? I'm going to design the lighting to avoid light hitting the screen with hidden LED strips and dimmable shaded lamps.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> 
> 
> Jason[/quote @chriscmore could you possibly weigh in on this subject ? Thanks in advance if you have the time.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calibrating a NX5 to a XD screen today and will post the measurements when I finish.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
Click to expand...


----------



## skylarlove1999

chriscmore said:


> skylarlove1999 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calibrating a NX5 to a XD screen today and will post the measurements when I finish.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect timing!!! Thanks so much!!
> 
> Sincerely
> Tristan Jones
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


----------



## Jason Rich

chriscmore said:


> Don't feel restricted to sizes. Every screen we make is custom to order, to the 0.1" resolution. So if an image width of 134.7" perfectly covers the baffles of some in-walls, for example, just tell us and we'll scale everything accordingly. As they say, you date the projector, you marry the screen. So, let's get it perfect.
> 
> For 9.5' seating I'd definitely go with the UF, as that was what it was designed for. The reduction in gain then would vote for a smaller image in the range you're considering or perhaps the higher-brightness Epson. I would encourage you to narrow the row spacing as much as possible. While you don't need the second row's feet touching the first row's heads, minimize that space as much as reasonable. This will greatly help you get a proper experience for both rows.
> 
> Keep in mind that HDR is not a brightness format; it's a dynamic format. Because of the eye's nonlinear response, maintaining a deep black level is actually more influential to a dynamic looking image than the level of the specular highlights. Here is Kris Deering's explanation:
> 
> The UF will help with the Epson's black levels. Either projector would be able to have a "best image" calibrated mode and a "daytime" for sports or TV things that aren't as critical with the black levels. We're obviously biased toward the JVC line, but if you're maintaining your close seating and larger size range, I like the UF/Epson combo.
> 
> A huge advantage to AT screens is that you can follow best audio practices AND video practices independently. Locate the speakers where they're acoustically perfect and don't worry about the screen. It won't care. Similarly, locate the image up where it's most comfortable and size it appropriately cinematic for you, since it doesn't need to dodge any speakers. This is why we can get best demo awards is because we're optimizing each aspect of the experience instead of compromising both.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris,

Thank you very much for the well reasoned and lengthy reply. I am very much excited to see what your measurements are. Please include the screen size so I can scale it.

The reason I am sold on the JVC over the Epson is the native 4k at the viewing distance/screen size I am looking at. I felt that the resolution difference would be significant. Of course, I'm also an armchair quarterback here and have exactly 0% of the experience you have. Do you think that's not a valid concern?

I fully appreciate that HDR does not equal BRIGHT, but I also have read that it demands more than SDR. My theory was to get as many fL as possible because I can dial it down, but I cannot get more.

As far as getting seating as close as possible, I think I've just about squished it as much as I can. The wife and I (read wife) have determined that we'd like an informal relaxed room, couches with ottomans, that can be a bit modular to expand for when kids have birthday parties or people come over to see "the big game." I have (tried to) attached my mockup of the room layout with properly sized furniture for what we (she) picked out.

Thank you again for taking your time. I fully appreciate it. It's not every day you have someone with expertise advising you.

Jason


----------



## Jason Rich

skylarlove1999 said:


> chriscmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect timing!!! Thanks so much!!
> 
> Sincerely
> Tristan Jones
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help!
Click to expand...


----------



## Jason Rich

chriscmore said:


> skylarlove1999 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calibrating a NX5 to a XD screen today and will post the measurements when I finish.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> So I had to make 5 posts before I could attach a picture. Here is the picture.
Click to expand...


----------



## chriscmore

I didn't get to post before I left to go build a screen in a video studio, sorry.

I calibrated the NX5 at 115"w (16:9 panel width, not 17:9), to match the geometry of the customer and get a more relevant brightness measurement and a better adjustment of convergence. On the XD screen, it measured 32.5 fL (1677 lumens) for HDR and 19.3 fL (996 lumens) for SDR, low lamp, and for best picture. Both of these results are higher than guidelines, so taking 20% off by going to the UF material would be fine at this size. One could of course bump the SDR up to high lamp mode but SMPTE guidelines for 100% white are still around 16-17 fL, and per that Kris Deering video I posted earlier, we advocate prioritizing a reference black level first for the most dynamic looking image.

Bumping up the NX7 could give you more brightness but I'd instead recommend using BT2020 color setting for HDR and utilizing the P3 filter. You give back the brightness bump that the 7 brings, but you gain a more dynamic color saturation, which in the end makes the image look more dynamic than just torchier whites. I hate torchy whites and it's the least important aspect to the HDR standard and most misunderstood.

Anyway, to answer your other question I think the picture structure (resolution, fineness) are more important than brightness differences, which is an ever-changing aspect of video. Either one would look great, but to me the most important recommendation I have for you would be to start with the UF. You date the projector and marry the screen. The UF was designed for your room.

Oddly, your room colors will affect the image much more than whatever projector you get, so try to get the boss to approve as dark and matte a colors as possible. If the boss wants a color tone such as navy paint, then balance with something orange-y maybe in the woodwork or furniture, etc. Otherwise try for as neutral gray/black as possible.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Check out the latest AVS Home Theater of the Month, "The Beast, Unleashed." There aren't too many curved 16:9 screens out there, and while technically there isn't any reason to do it the end result is too cool. His mojo levels are at least three sexy-magics/second higher.

The rest of the room is so well thought out that it deserves to be on the shelf of AVS home theaters from which others can learn a lot of best (Beast?) practices from.

https://www.avsforum.com/home-theat...Kk1wg3Ze2yv-vkSc0lUzoFryqLndKcMWrsrrsncmr3_i4

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## skylarlove1999

chriscmore said:


> I didn't get to post before I left to go build a screen in a video studio, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> I calibrated the NX5 at 115"w (16:9 panel width, not 17:9), to match the geometry of the customer and get a more relevant brightness measurement and a better adjustment of convergence. On the XD screen, it measured 32.5 fL (1677 lumens) for HDR and 19.3 fL (996 lumens) for SDR, low lamp, and for best picture. Both of these results are higher than guidelines, so taking 20% off by going to the UF material would be fine at this size. One could of course bump the SDR up to high lamp mode but SMPTE guidelines for 100% white are still around 16-17 fL, and per that Kris Deering video I posted earlier, we advocate prioritizing a reference black level first for the most dynamic looking image.
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping up the NX7 could give you more brightness but I'd instead recommend using BT2020 color setting for HDR and utilizing the P3 filter. You give back the brightness bump that the 7 brings, but you gain a more dynamic color saturation, which in the end makes the image look more dynamic than just torchier whites. I hate torchy whites and it's the least important aspect to the HDR standard and most misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, to answer your other question I think the picture structure (resolution, fineness) are more important than brightness differences, which is an ever-changing aspect of video. Either one would look great, but to me the most important recommendation I have for you would be to start with the UF. You date the projector and marry the screen. The UF was designed for your room.
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, your room colors will affect the image much more than whatever projector you get, so try to get the boss to approve as dark and matte a colors as possible. If the boss wants a color tone such as navy paint, then balance with something orange-y maybe in the woodwork or furniture, etc. Otherwise try for as neutral gray/black as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris[/quote @chriscmore thanks for taking the time to go into such detail regarding the JVC projectors and your screens. Actual readings along with your analysis and recommendation is greatly appreciated, especially your comments about how important the black floor is to having HDR with specular highlights instead of white torches. That really hit home for me. Thanks for the detailed explanation of HDR not being about brightness but really about a more dynamic range of colors. The filter on the NX7 certainly brings that point home as long as your room is properly treated the filter really showcases the benefit the DCI-P3 color space brings to specular highlights and shadow details. Thanks again.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## rossandwendy

Is anyone here using Seymour masking panels with the Millibel AT fabric? I would prefer to go with velvet for totally black masking, concerned that the Millibel won't look as black especially with image spillover on it, but placement of a third tower speaker would be better if my bottom mask was AT, so am considering the Millibel option.

Another thought: the tweeter and midrange drivers of my tower speaker would be above the mask anyway, so if I go with my preferred choice of velvet for the bottom mask will it be ok that 2 of the 3 woofers are covered by the velvet? I believe the crossover from midrange driver to the woofers is around 500Hz.

EDIT: I'm thinking I better stay with velvet masks so I have no regrets about the blackness all around the frame (I have a lot of velvet in the front around screen on walls, floor, ceiling). It means I'll need to set my center channel tower speaker on a 12" stand and then every driver will be above my bottom mask. Perhaps I should also put the left and right towers, which will be outside the frame, on same 12" stands to match center channel height and keep audio panning of LCR perfect at same tweeter height?

Ross


----------



## avsBuddy

chriscmore said:


> Check out the latest AVS Home Theater of the Month, "The Beast, Unleashed." There aren't too many curved 16:9 screens out there, and while technically there isn't any reason to do it the end result is too cool. His mojo levels are at least three sexy-magics/second higher.
> 
> The rest of the room is so well thought out that it deserves to be on the shelf of AVS home theaters from which others can learn a lot of best (Beast?) practices from.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/home-theat...Kk1wg3Ze2yv-vkSc0lUzoFryqLndKcMWrsrrsncmr3_i4
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


What are the benefits of using curved screen without anamorphic lens?


----------



## chriscmore

rossandwendy said:


> Is anyone here using Seymour masking panels with the Millibel AT fabric? I would prefer to go with velvet for totally black masking, concerned that the Millibel won't look as black especially with image spillover on it, but placement of a third tower speaker would be better if my bottom mask was AT, so am considering the Millibel option.
> 
> Another thought: the tweeter and midrange drivers of my tower speaker would be above the mask anyway, so if I go with my preferred choice of velvet for the bottom mask will it be ok that 2 of the 3 woofers are covered by the velvet? I believe the crossover from midrange driver to the woofers is around 500Hz.
> 
> EDIT: I'm thinking I better stay with velvet masks so I have no regrets about the blackness all around the frame (I have a lot of velvet in the front around screen on walls, floor, ceiling). It means I'll need to set my center channel tower speaker on a 12" stand and then every driver will be above my bottom mask. Perhaps I should also put the left and right towers, which will be outside the frame, on same 12" stands to match center channel height and keep audio panning of LCR perfect at same tweeter height?
> 
> Ross


The "non-AT" velvet is still an air-permeable fabric, which is far better than a sheet of pvc. At 500Hz on down it's quite acoustically transparent, so I like where you're headed. I agree that the speakers should be elevated a bit anyway just for better co-location with the image, or maybe the screen position lowered, but this would make maybe just the third woofer firing into the velvet. That would result in a fine response. The velvet is just considered non-AT because it would absorb the top octave a lot. The bass region is not much affected at all.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

avsBuddy said:


> What are the benefits of using curved screen without anamorphic lens?


It's just aesthetic. The feeling of being in a more immersive environment.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## avsBuddy

Good to know. Curved screens always looked interesting to me for wider seating but I thought they shouldn’t be used with normal lens due to distortion. However my coworker just had his hometheater fully installed by a reputable A.V. company and they built him a curved screen paired with stock Epson projector.


----------



## ElJefe22

Working on finalizing the building plans for my room remodel and wanted to know if there was any guideline I should stick to on how deep to keep the false wall. 

At what distance should the back of the screen be from the front face of the speakers? Is there any minimum or rule of the thumb to follow? Does that distance make a difference if using just the center stage xd material vs adding the black backing?

Planning on a 130" wide precision frame 2.35:1 center stage xd


----------



## Bittermidget

ElJefe22 said:


> Working on finalizing the building plans for my room remodel and wanted to know if there was any guideline I should stick to on how deep to keep the false wall.
> 
> At what distance should the back of the screen be from the front face of the speakers? Is there any minimum or rule of the thumb to follow? Does that distance make a difference if using just the center stage xd material vs adding the black backing?
> 
> Planning on a 130" wide precision frame 2.35:1 center stage xd


I believe this page of the Seymour AV site covers your question...about half way down, but the whole page has tidbits.

http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp


----------



## ElJefe22

Bittermidget said:


> I believe this page of the Seymour AV site covers your question...about half way down, but the whole page has tidbits.
> 
> http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp


Thank you, I swear I looked everywhere on the site and couldn't find anything


----------



## rossandwendy

*new XD screen setup*

@chriscmore Chris, I should be placing an order in a few days as I am finalizing my custom image sizes and masking panels. 

I am wondering if it's possible to have a 16:9 ratio screen that has a top horizontal mask kept in place 95% of the time, and the remaining screen area below that mask is used as a CIA setup with 2 vertical side panels for standard 1.85/16:9, and with 1 bottom horizontal mask for 2.39:1 content. I did not know if your magnetic vertical side panels could attach while a top horizontal mask is still in place.

The reason for the above idea is when watching an IMAX-style film for special occasions (Avatar being a favorite fun flick that I would like to watch huge), I can remove that top mask that normally is always in place and suddenly I have a giant extremely immersive 16:9.

If this is not possible with the masks I can eliminate the idea and just keep it simple with a standard CIA screen.

Thanks,
Ross


----------



## avsBuddy

As far as I know, Seymour can do 4 way manual masking.


----------



## chriscmore

rossandwendy said:


> @chriscmore Chris, I should be placing an order in a few days as I am finalizing my custom image sizes and masking panels.
> 
> I am wondering if it's possible to have a 16:9 ratio screen that has a top horizontal mask kept in place 95% of the time, and the remaining screen area below that mask is used as a CIA setup with 2 vertical side panels for standard 1.85/16:9, and with 1 bottom horizontal mask for 2.39:1 content. I did not know if your magnetic vertical side panels could attach while a top horizontal mask is still in place.
> 
> The reason for the above idea is when watching an IMAX-style film for special occasions (Avatar being a favorite fun flick that I would like to watch huge), I can remove that top mask that normally is always in place and suddenly I have a giant extremely immersive 16:9.
> 
> If this is not possible with the masks I can eliminate the idea and just keep it simple with a standard CIA screen.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ross


We can do manual 4-way masking no problem, but I like to keep the panels going to the frame. In other words, not nesting panels within panels. Now a possible way around it is if the top mask is to be in 95% of the time, we could add screw fasteners on the sides so that it's immovable when you put the side panels in. We then get the normal three sides of magnet magic.

For the bottom panel I'd have to think about it a bit more. It's less risky since it's on the bottom, so maybe it could nest between the sides ok. Email us to confirm what ratio shapes and panel ideas you have and we can sketch some things out.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## puntloos

OK newbie here, and it's such a large topic I couldn't easily find answers:

Since I'm in a 'combined home cinema and livingroom' situation

1/ Do seymour provide electric retractable screens? 
2/ And is it just 'better' to have a black background behind the screen, or is it ok to have 'random stuff' behind the screen? (in particular, I will probably have a 55" flat panel TV and probably a white-ish storage cupboard type thing. Bad idea?


----------



## thrillcat

puntloos said:


> OK newbie here, and it's such a large topic I couldn't easily find answers:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I'm in a 'combined home cinema and livingroom' situation
> 
> 
> 
> 1/ Do seymour provide electric retractable screens?
> 
> 2/ And is it just 'better' to have a black background behind the screen, or is it ok to have 'random stuff' behind the screen? (in particular, I will probably have a 55" flat panel TV and probably a white-ish storage cupboard type thing. Bad idea?




1) yes, they have great electric retractable. 

2) if you have a TV and/or anything else that could reflect light, you want the black backing. The horns on my old speakers behind the screen were black, yet still reflective enough to reflect shiny bright spots back through the screen. The black layer solves this problem. (I believe all their retractable screens may come with the black layer, but I could be wrong)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## StevenC56

puntloos said:


> OK newbie here, and it's such a large topic I couldn't easily find answers:
> 
> Since I'm in a 'combined home cinema and livingroom' situation
> 
> 1/ Do seymour provide electric retractable screens?
> 2/ And is it just 'better' to have a black background behind the screen, or is it ok to have 'random stuff' behind the screen? (in particular, I will probably have a 55" flat panel TV and probably a white-ish storage cupboard type thing. Bad idea?


I have a Seymour AV CenterStage XD retractable, and it's an awesome screen. There is a black backing on them that should mask your items behind. But of course darker items behind is probably preferred. I really only have a problem with equipment LED's and display windows showing on occasion depending on what's one the screen. Not a big deal. The only thing I would like to see is retrofit side masking panels since I went with a scope screen. I've asked Chris about this a few times, but although he's given it some thought there are other projects that are a priority.


----------



## puntloos

thrillcat said:


> 1) yes, they have great electric retractable.


Hmm, might need to get a quote then.


> 2) if you have a TV and/or anything else that could reflect light, you want the black backing. The horns on my old speakers behind the screen were black, yet still reflective enough to reflect shiny bright spots back through the screen. The black layer solves this problem. (I believe all their retractable screens may come with the black layer, but I could be wrong)


I'm not quite sure I understand how this works. Would that black layer be hung behind the speaker, but before the rear wall? 
Or is the black layer acoustically transparent too? (hoping this is the answer..)


----------



## thrillcat

puntloos said:


> Hmm, might need to get a quote then.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand how this works. Would that black layer be hung behind the speaker, but before the rear wall?
> 
> Or is the black layer acoustically transparent too? (hoping this is the answer..)




The black layer is also AT material, and it is right behind the screen. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## McLuvin

*Neo material - retractable*

Hello fellow Seymour owners. I have a question for those of you that have the Neo material with a retractable motor. I am coming from a fixed frame XD screen, and wanted to upgrade to a motorized setup with the Neo material as I could see the weave in the XD material. I just installed the new motorized screen with the Neo, and I am seeing some odd vertical lines in the material. They look kinda like creases in the materiel when viewed up close. I reached out to Seymour and Chris is trying to tell me it's normal, but I am having a hard time believing that. Any others out there with this setup confirm if it is normal or not? I just spent A LOT of money and time on this and a little discouraged at this point. Any input is appreciated.


----------



## StevenC56

McLuvin said:


> Hello fellow Seymour owners. I have a question for those of you that have the Neo material with a retractable motor. I am coming from a fixed frame XD screen, and wanted to upgrade to a motorized setup with the Neo material as I could see the weave in the XD material. I just installed the new motorized screen with the Neo, and I am seeing some odd vertical lines in the material. They look kinda like creases in the materiel when viewed up close. I reached out to Seymour and Chris is trying to tell me it's normal, but I am having a hard time believing that. Any others out there with this setup confirm if it is normal or not? I just spent A LOT of money and time on this and a little discouraged at this point. Any input is appreciated.


I have an XD retractable, and can certainly see the weave up close. I've never seen the Neo, so I can't give you an opinion on what you are seeing. It could possibly just be the texture of that material. How does it look with your projector at normal viewing distances? Did you happen to get a sample of the Neo prior to ordering your screen? If so, you could just compare the sample material to your screen. And lastly-Chris is a stand up guy and he knows his stuff, so I don't think there's anything going on there.


----------



## StevenC56

@McLuvin

Is this what you are seeing?

https://www.avsforum.com/seymour-screen-excellence-enlightor-neo-screen-cedia-2017/


----------



## McLuvin

StevenC56 said:


> I have an XD retractable, and can certainly see the weave up close. I've never seen the Neo, so I can't give you an opinion on what you are seeing. It could possibly just be the texture of that material. How does it look with your projector at normal viewing distances? Did you happen to get a sample of the Neo prior to ordering your screen? If so, you could just compare the sample material to your screen. And lastly-Chris is a stand up guy and he knows his stuff, so I don't think there's anything going on there.



Thanks for the response Steven. It's definitely not the texture of the material itself I am seeing... I only had a chance to view it briefly in normal conditions, so I really can't comment too much at this point. I did however see some slight texturing during one bright scene, which I was thinking were attributed to the lines, but I am not 100% at this point. The slight texturing I saw was definitely better then what I see with the XD material. The main selling point of the Neo material is that there is no min seating distance, and is why I went with it. Yes, I did get a sample of the material prior. That and the UF. The sample looked normal as expected. I have had EXCELLENT dealings with Seymour. This is my second screen from them. Jon there is top notch and is always very helpful. I spent a few months going back and forth until I finally pulled the trigger, so it was well thought out. Anybody that has purchased between the two different brands, knows that you spend twice as much (or more) for the Seymour Excellence product. I struggled with the dollar amount, but thought I was going to get a better product.



I am off this week and will do some serious viewing. Outside of the material, the motorized function turned out perfect. The fit and finish couldn't have gone any better.


I will report back as I progress.


Anyone with the Neo material, please let me know if you have a similar experience. I don't want to bash Seymour if this is normal. I can tell you though if it is normal, and I can see it during viewing, then I may have purchased the wrong product.


----------



## McLuvin

StevenC56 said:


> @*McLuvin*
> 
> Is this what you are seeing?
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/seymour-screen-excellence-enlightor-neo-screen-cedia-2017/



That is the Neo material, but that is not all what I am seeing. I wish that's all I was seeing.. here is the best picture I could get of it. Not sure how it will translate on the forums, but try to see if you can notice the vertical lines. And these are not waves which seems to be common with motorized screens. This looks different to me.


----------



## StevenC56

McLuvin said:


> That is the Neo material, but that is not all what I am seeing. I wish that's all I was seeing.. here is the best picture I could get of it. Not sure how it will translate on the forums, but try to see if you can notice the vertical lines. And these are not waves which seems to be common with motorized screens. This looks different to me.


How big is that screen? Looks huge!


----------



## McLuvin

StevenC56 said:


> How big is that screen? Looks huge!



Ha! It's not as big as you might think... it's 110" diagonal. Watching a little more right now. They wife can notice the lines, and she could give a rats a** about this stuff. Looks similar to banding or dirty screen affect. It's faint, but definitely there.


Looking closely at the material, it looks as if the material was never perfectly flat before being rolled up and compressed. The lines are like crinkles in the fabric, but oddly linear.


----------



## StevenC56

McLuvin said:


> Ha! It's not as big as you might think... it's 110" diagonal. Watching a little more right now. They wife can notice the lines, and she could give a rats a** about this stuff. Looks similar to banding or dirty screen affect. It's faint, but definitely there.
> 
> 
> Looking closely at the material, it looks as if the material was never perfectly flat before being rolled up and compressed. The lines are like crinkles in the fabric, but oddly linear.


Looks tall I guess. Mine is a 105" wide 2:35 scope screen. (114" diagonal, so about 91.5" diagonal with 16/9 material) So I'd imagine yours is a 16/9 and not a scope screen then?


----------



## McLuvin

StevenC56 said:


> Looks tall I guess. Mine is a 105" wide 2:35 scope screen. (114" diagonal, so about 91.5" diagonal with 16/9 material) So I'd imagine yours is a 16/9 and not a scope screen then?





Yes, 16x9... I didn't want to go down the scope trail. I've gone down so many in this hobby, that I wanted to keep the screen simple.


----------



## jconjason

McLuvin said:


> That is the Neo material, but that is not all what I am seeing. I wish that's all I was seeing.. here is the best picture I could get of it. Not sure how it will translate on the forums, but try to see if you can notice the vertical lines. And these are not waves which seems to be common with motorized screens. This looks different to me.


I'm not sure if me being able to see them helps or not but I can clearly see them. To me they look like backlight rows on a TV. I'm no expert on the matter so no idea if it's normal or not.


----------



## BBLV

About to pull the trigger on a 150" wide XD scope screen. Any issues or artifacts when viewing 3D movies with the XD material?


----------



## StevenC56

BBLV said:


> About to pull the trigger on a 150" wide XD scope screen. Any issues or artifacts when viewing 3D movies with the XD material?


Not for me.


----------



## McLuvin

jconjason said:


> I'm not sure if me being able to see them helps or not but I can clearly see them. To me they look like backlight rows on a TV. I'm no expert on the matter so no idea if it's normal or not.





Thank you... Chris seems to think it's typical mechanical waves that is common with motorized screens. I am trying to tell him it's not. So far, I don't sense any real help coming from him. I just need to confirm this is normal for this setup or not.


----------



## nathan_h

That photo is strange. Is that a gray ramp test pattern? From the side?

I would think if it’s “normal” it would be horizontal as well as vertical. 

May be worth exchanging if the screen you got is different from the test material you received.


----------



## ElJefe22

Do any of y'all have LEDs behind your screen to showcase your speakers? If so, should you still use the black backing or not? This would be for a 130" wide precision frame 2.35:1 center stage XD


----------



## StevenC56

ElJefe22 said:


> Do any of y'all have LEDs behind your screen to showcase your speakers? If so, should you still use the black backing or not? This would be for a 130" wide precision frame 2.35:1 center stage XD


Even with the black backing on my XD retractable, I can see the power LED's and the front panel displays on my equipment at times. But I would still recommend the black backing as it cuts down on reflections.


----------



## ElJefe22

StevenC56 said:


> Even with the black backing on my XD retractable, I can see the power LED's and the front panel displays on my equipment at times. But I would still recommend the black backing as it cuts down on reflections.


awesome, thank you. I'll be purchasing the black backing then


----------



## sjerseydad22

chriscmore said:


> skylarlove1999 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calibrating a NX5 to a XD screen today and will post the measurements when I finish.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, when one swaps in an XD for an existing screen, is a new calibration required?
Click to expand...


----------



## tcramer

Planning to get a couple Seymour screens for friend's rooms I am setting up, and have a couple questions I am hoping someone can chime in on. I plan to go XD with front row seating distances just shy of 11' for both, paired with a JVC RS1000 and RS2000. Both will be 16:9, one being 110" wide and one being 120" wide. 

Q1: If going with the Precision frame, is it worth the upgrade to the continuous frame to avoid sagging, while still saving a few hundred over the Premier?

Q2: If the entire area behind the screen is black (carpet, speakers, Linacoustic etc), does the black backing provide any value? I wasn't sure if the black backing attached to the back of the screen material will improve contrast only if the area behind the screen is not completely dark, or no matter what. Or would doing a layer of cheap black speaker fabric right behind the screen serve the same purpose for much less?


----------



## surroundsound99

If I drop my screen down only an inch or two in front of my sub, will the screen vibrate or shake because the sub is right behind it?

EDIT: The sub is a Power Sound Audio XS30se with the ICE upgrade, 800W, dual 15" woofers.


----------



## skylarlove1999

surroundsound99 said:


> If I drop my screen down only an inch or two in front of my sub, will the screen vibrate or shake because the sub is right behind it?


Depends on the subwoofer? LOL. My SVS PB ULTRA 16 shook my screen from 2 ft away. Although you couldn't really notice it. My screen was not AT. if yours is AT there should not be a shake. Sound is basically supposed to pass right through. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## surroundsound99

skylarlove1999 said:


> Depends on the subwoofer? LOL. My SVS PB ULTRA 16 shook my screen from 2 ft away. Although you couldn't really notice it. My screen was not AT. if yours is AT there should not be a shake. Sound is basically supposed to pass right through. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


How close did you have to be before you could see the shaking/vibrating? Was it noticeable from seating distance, I'm 9' away.

EDIT: The sub is a Power Sound Audio XS30se with the ICE upgrade, 800W, dual 15" woofers.


----------



## skylarlove1999

surroundsound99 said:


> How close did you have to be before you could see the shaking/vibrating? Was it noticeable from seating distance, I'm 9' away.


Honestly never saw it. I could just feel the frame vibrating. Just moved the sub a little bit more away from the wall. I think it was the wall vibrating making the frame vibrate. I could hear the frame vibrate against the wall at certain points in a movie. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## surroundsound99

skylarlove1999 said:


> Honestly never saw it. I could just feel the frame vibrating. Just moved the sub a little bit more away from the wall. I think it was the wall vibrating making the frame vibrate. I could hear the frame vibrate against the wall at certain points in a movie. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Oh okay thank you. Yes, I bet your Ultra-16 shook the whole place and not just the screen!


----------



## gil393

sjerseydad22 said:


> chriscmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, when one swaps in an XD for an existing screen, is a new calibration required?
> 
> 
> 
> The XD is pretty neutral so if the previous material was also neutral you can get by. However, if you are taking the time to get calibrations in the first place then yes getting a new calibration is recommended. Spandex, in particular, is not all that neutral having a slight blue push. If you went to XD without recalibrating you would likely be short on blue with the XD.
Click to expand...


----------



## chriscmore

tcramer said:


> Planning to get a couple Seymour screens for friend's rooms I am setting up, and have a couple questions I am hoping someone can chime in on. I plan to go XD with front row seating distances just shy of 11' for both, paired with a JVC RS1000 and RS2000. Both will be 16:9, one being 110" wide and one being 120" wide.
> 
> Q1: If going with the Precision frame, is it worth the upgrade to the continuous frame to avoid sagging, while still saving a few hundred over the Premier?
> 
> Q2: If the entire area behind the screen is black (carpet, speakers, Linacoustic etc), does the black backing provide any value? I wasn't sure if the black backing attached to the back of the screen material will improve contrast only if the area behind the screen is not completely dark, or no matter what. Or would doing a layer of cheap black speaker fabric right behind the screen serve the same purpose for much less?


A1: For the Lambertian or scatter screens, they are more forgiving of having a seam in the top/bottom frame members than the more reflective, directional materials. The spliced frame won't sag per se, but could be either pincushioned or barrel shaped by a tiny bit depending on how you hang it. The French cleats can be moved inward or outward to change this. As far as "worth it," I can't say how sensitive you'd be to having a seam there or not.

A2: I don't think so. Only about 5% of UF customers go for a black backing layer so you're fine without having to resort to multiple layers. You can always add it later if you need. Or, it wouldn't hurt to simply pin the black material you have and you can even cut holes out for the speakers so you can have it all. Grimani often does that in our installations and demos.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> If I drop my screen down only an inch or two in front of my sub, will the screen vibrate or shake because the sub is right behind it?
> 
> EDIT: The sub is a Power Sound Audio XS30se with the ICE upgrade, 800W, dual 15" woofers.


Two things are at play here, airflow and sound waves. Acoustically, the material doesn't care at all about the sound waves. I think the record of behind-screen subs is around 20 kW. In these cases structural vibrations are what can shake the frame or roller, translating to on-screen vibration, but this can be mitigated by practicing good vibration control.

The screen is more sensitive to airflow. If you're directing a port into the screen, I'd like to have at least 12" of spacing. If you're just directing a driver's face into the screen, depending on its xMax you should be good at about 5". If the driver is firing off to the side, then there's no distance issue since there's no airflow. The material was designed to hang directly over in-wall LCRs, so it takes a lot of low frequency air movement to cause problems.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> Two things are at play here, airflow and sound waves. Acoustically, the material doesn't care at all about the sound waves. I think the record of behind-screen subs is around 20 kW. In these cases structural vibrations are what can shake the frame or roller, translating to on-screen vibration, but this can be mitigated by practicing good vibration control.
> 
> The screen is more sensitive to airflow. If you're directing a port into the screen, I'd like to have at least 12" of spacing. If you're just directing a driver's face into the screen, depending on its xMax you should be good at about 5". If the driver is firing off to the side, then there's no distance issue since there's no airflow. The material was designed to hang directly over in-wall LCRs, so it takes a lot of low frequency air movement to cause problems.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris! I hadn't thought about structural vibrations, I was only thinking of air flow, as you said. The sub is sealed, so there's no ports blowing air to worry about. I will have to think about how I can mitigate vibrations from the floor above. That's great to know your material is designed to hang over LCRs so I won't have to worry about that. Thanks again.


----------



## jcantanixon

I haven't been able to reach the SeymourAV website for almost a week, I think it may be down.


Anyway, building a dedicated theater room from scratch and trying to decide on a screen size/material. Room is 16w x 20d x 12h. Two rows of seating, riser for the back row. Middle distance between the 2 rows is 12.5ft from the screen. Room will be very dark, but maybe note 100% blacked out. Probably going to use the NX5 as the projector, and was considering mounting it on a shelf on the back wall since it's so heavy and the ceiling is 12 ft high.. 


Center Stage XD seems well reviewed, but I was thinking of getting UF since the projector is 4k and the front row might be close enough to see the weave. These are the sizes I'm considering.

H130 = 130W 73H 149.2D 
H140 = 140W 79H 160.6D 

F140 = 140W 60H 152.1D 
F150 = 150W 64H 163D 

So which size and material would you choose and why?


----------



## chriscmore

jcantanixon said:


> I haven't been able to reach the SeymourAV website for almost a week, I think it may be down.
> 
> 
> Anyway, building a dedicated theater room from scratch and trying to decide on a screen size/material. Room is 16w x 20d x 12h. Two rows of seating, riser for the back row. Middle distance between the 2 rows is 12.5ft from the screen. Room will be very dark, but maybe note 100% blacked out. Probably going to use the NX5 as the projector, and was considering mounting it on a shelf on the back wall since it's so heavy and the ceiling is 12 ft high..
> 
> 
> Center Stage XD seems well reviewed, but I was thinking of getting UF since the projector is 4k and the front row might be close enough to see the weave. These are the sizes I'm considering.
> 
> H130 = 130W 73H 149.2D
> H140 = 140W 79H 160.6D
> 
> F140 = 140W 60H 152.1D
> F150 = 150W 64H 163D
> 
> So which size and material would you choose and why?


Sorry for the site service levels. GKG has had my sites down for three days now. Originally their fb page said they had a power outage and failure of their generator, but my sites are still down. They say "Unfortunately this is an issue we are working out with the software manufacturer Plesk. We do not have a solid time estimate on a solution." 

But to your question, I do think that you'll be close enough for the viewing distance that the UF was designed for. Guidelines would say you should go toward the smaller range that you're considering, as those sizes are pretty head-turning large and is pushing the NX5. Even the H130 would be a IMAX-like ~52 degrees wide viewing at an estimated 11' front row spacing.

If you can move the seating back a couple feet then the XD would be the way to go and those sizes more reasonable for the NX5. I'm just not sure which is more sticky in your design: the seating distance or screen size.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## rossandwendy

jcantanixon said:


> I haven't been able to reach the SeymourAV website for almost a week, I think it may be down.
> 
> 
> Anyway, building a dedicated theater room from scratch and trying to decide on a screen size/material. Room is 16w x 20d x 12h. Two rows of seating, riser for the back row. Middle distance between the 2 rows is 12.5ft from the screen. Room will be very dark, but maybe note 100% blacked out. Probably going to use the NX5 as the projector, and was considering mounting it on a shelf on the back wall since it's so heavy and the ceiling is 12 ft high..
> 
> 
> Center Stage XD seems well reviewed, but I was thinking of getting UF since the projector is 4k and the front row might be close enough to see the weave. These are the sizes I'm considering.
> 
> H130 = 130W 73H 149.2D
> H140 = 140W 79H 160.6D
> 
> F140 = 140W 60H 152.1D
> F150 = 150W 64H 163D
> 
> So which size and material would you choose and why?


Hi,

I would get samples sent to you so you can get a feel for the texture of each. The XD is brighter and is my first choice in an AT screen if not sitting too close. I cannot see the weave at 11 feet, maybe I can at 10, but my eyes are not the sharpest anymore. With HDR material you want a good level of brightness which would lead me to go with the 130" wide as maximum (and mount projector so throw is nearly as close as possible), and you could even make a case for no more than 120" wide if you want to stay in low lamp mode on the JVC as the bulb dims with age (high lamp is louder).

Chris comes highly recommended, great products and service. The availability of custom masking panels is really sweet. Also highly recommend the JVC, I am loving mine, contrast and blacks are in another league compared to projector brands I owned previously.

How far will eyes be from screen in front row? Is the front your main viewing row? Preferred viewing angles vary a lot from person to person, but 49-50 degrees will give you middle of a commercial theater view so 12 feet from eyes to 130" screen in front row gets you close to that.

Check your PM for some additional info that may help.

Cheers,
Ross


----------



## Blackdevil77

I'm 99% sold on the center stage XD material based on the research I've done, but I would like to run my idea in this thread anyway since most of you have experience with both screen materials. 

The screen size will be ~12 feet wide with a 2:35 aspect ratio (SeymourAV's website is down at the moment so I can't get the exact width). The throw distance will be about 18' 11" and the projector will likely be a JVC RS2000/NX7. The eyes of the viewers in the front row will be about 9.5'-10' from the screen. I want the most acoustically transparent fabric possible because audio is a priority for me over picture (I do a lot of music listening). The speakers are JBL M2's. I know the XD is the more acoustically transparent material, but then I saw a graph that shows the UF actually having less of a high end roll off? What do you guys think?


----------



## Krbass

Blackdevil77 said:


> I'm 99% sold on the center stage XD material based on the research I've done, but I would like to run my idea in this thread anyway since most of you have experience with both screen materials.
> 
> 
> 
> The screen size will be ~12 feet wide with a 2:35 aspect ratio (SeymourAV's website is down at the moment so I can't get the exact width). The throw distance will be about 18' 11" and the projector will likely be a JVC RS2000/NX7. The eyes of the viewers in the front row will be about 9.5'-10' from the screen. I want the most acoustically transparent fabric possible because audio is a priority for me over picture (I do a lot of music listening). The speakers are JBL M2's. I know the XD is the more acoustically transparent material, but then I saw a graph that shows the UF actually having less of a high end roll off? What do you guys think?


My eyes are 10' and some change from the XD material. I'd be lying if I said I never noticed the weave but it only shows during very bright scenes and only of I'm really looking for it. I have a JVC X790 shooting on to a 130" 16:9 and tried spandex first, it looked great but the XD really made the picture pop so much more. The gain of the screen out ways the visible weave for me. And again. It's not something i notice unless I try to. 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## thrillcat

Krbass said:


> My eyes are 10' and some change from the XD material. I'd be lying if I said I never noticed the weave but it only shows during very bright scenes and only of I'm really looking for it. I have a JVC X790 shooting on to a 130" 16:9 and tried spandex first, it looked great but the XD really made the picture pop so much more. The gain of the screen out ways the visible weave for me. And again. It's not something i notice unless I try to.
> 
> Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk



This is spot on.

At the time of the swap, I had a Panasonic AE8000U shooting from 12'. Originally my front row was 11', an update to my room moved it to about 9.5'. Screen is masked at 2:1 aspect ratio, 100" wide by 50" high. 

When I still had the XD I noticed the weave in bright spots, but also only if I was looking for it to see if I could see the weave. I wouldn't have swapped out had Chris not shown up one day with the UF material. I swapped it. 

I now have a JVC X790R. The UF looks great, I don't see the weave at all. But I'm looking to move, and I'm really hoping the new house will accommodate a viewing distance more suitable to XD, as I like the extra gain. The UF doesn't look dark, but a little boost in the gain is always welcome for me.

I have never been able to hear a difference between the two, either.


----------



## Blackdevil77

Krbass said:


> My eyes are 10' and some change from the XD material. I'd be lying if I said I never noticed the weave but it only shows during very bright scenes and only of I'm really looking for it. I have a JVC X790 shooting on to a 130" 16:9 and tried spandex first, it looked great but the XD really made the picture pop so much more. The gain of the screen out ways the visible weave for me. And again. It's not something i notice unless I try to.
> 
> Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk





thrillcat said:


> This is spot on.
> 
> At the time of the swap, I had a Panasonic AE8000U shooting from 12'. Originally my front row was 11', an update to my room moved it to about 9.5'. Screen is masked at 2:1 aspect ratio, 100" wide by 50" high.
> 
> When I still had the XD I noticed the weave in bright spots, but also only if I was looking for it to see if I could see the weave. I wouldn't have swapped out had Chris not shown up one day with the UF material. I swapped it.
> 
> I now have a JVC X790R. The UF looks great, I don't see the weave at all. But I'm looking to move, and I'm really hoping the new house will accommodate a viewing distance more suitable to XD, as I like the extra gain. The UF doesn't look dark, but a little boost in the gain is always welcome for me.
> 
> I have never been able to hear a difference between the two, either.


Based on this, I'm still leaning towards the XD. I will probably notice the weave, but I don't think it will bother me. What would bother me more is a guest pointing it out lol. But the pros probably outweigh that small con when considering the long throw distance of over 18 feet!


----------



## tcramer

@chriscmore

I need to help build a false wall for H120 Precision screen either tonight or tomorrow night. With the site down, I can't get the exact specs.

Can you by chance reply or PM me with the specs for this screen when you see this? I assume any variance from these specs would be small enough that it would not effect this.

Thanks!


----------



## gil393

Blackdevil77 said:


> Based on this, I'm still leaning towards the XD. I will probably notice the weave, but I don't think it will bother me. What would bother me more is a guest pointing it out lol. But the pros probably outweigh that small con when considering the long throw distance of over 18 feet!


I have the XD on a 200" screen, first row at 9-11 depending on program material. I can barely see the weave at 9 or 10 but it must be a very boring movie for me to look for it. As for guests, they will all be amazed at the setup and will not know to look for a weave, nor will the recognize it as anything objectionable if they happen to see it. A dim picture will however be noticed.


----------



## chriscmore

tcramer said:


> @chriscmore
> 
> I need to help build a false wall for H120 Precision screen either tonight or tomorrow night. With the site down, I can't get the exact specs.
> 
> Can you by chance reply or PM me with the specs for this screen when you see this? I assume any variance from these specs would be small enough that it would not effect this.
> 
> Thanks!


Image: 120" x 67.5"
Outer frame size: 125.3" x 72.8" (1.3" deep)

The recommended locations for the french cleats would be 25.3" in from each corner, although you can move them out if you see any barrel distortion, or inward if you see any pincushioning of the frame.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Blackdevil77

gil393 said:


> I have the XD on a 200" screen, first row at 9-11 depending on program material. I can barely see the weave at 9 or 10 but it must be a very boring movie for me to look for it. As for guests, they will all be amazed at the setup and will not know to look for a weave, nor will the recognize it as anything objectionable if they happen to see it. A dim picture will however be noticed.


That's my logic as well. Brighter picture>slightly visible weave on certain scenes.


----------



## jcantanixon

chriscmore said:


> But to your question, I do think that you'll be close enough for the viewing distance that the UF was designed for. Guidelines would say you should go toward the smaller range that you're considering, as those sizes are pretty head-turning large and is pushing the NX5. Even the H130 would be a IMAX-like ~52 degrees wide viewing at an estimated 11' front row spacing.
> 
> If you can move the seating back a couple feet then the XD would be the way to go and those sizes more reasonable for the NX5. I'm just not sure which is more sticky in your design: the seating distance or screen size.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris



Thanks Chris. The theater build is part of a larger remodel, so I guess none of it is really sticky, but the riser is planned for 7.5 feet from the back wall so that there's room to walk behind the back row of seats. I could considering moving it back, but I don't know if there's room to move it back 2 feet. Does the XD have that much more pop than the UF? Would the extra 100 lumens from the NX7 help? 







rossandwendy said:


> Hi,
> 
> I would get samples sent to you so you can get a feel for the texture of each. The XD is brighter and is my first choice in an AT screen if not sitting too close. I cannot see the weave at 11 feet, maybe I can at 10, but my eyes are not the sharpest anymore. With HDR material you want a good level of brightness which would lead me to go with the 130" wide as maximum (and mount projector so throw is nearly as close as possible), and you could even make a case for no more than 120" wide if you want to stay in low lamp mode on the JVC as the bulb dims with age (high lamp is louder).
> 
> Chris comes highly recommended, great products and service. The availability of custom masking panels is really sweet. Also highly recommend the JVC, I am loving mine, contrast and blacks are in another league compared to projector brands I owned previously.
> 
> How far will eyes be from screen in front row? Is the front your main viewing row? Preferred viewing angles vary a lot from person to person, but 49-50 degrees will give you middle of a commercial theater view so 12 feet from eyes to 130" screen in front row gets you close to that.
> 
> Check your PM for some additional info that may help.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ross



Thanks Ross. This is my first dedicated theater build and I want it to have some wow factor. I was thinking that using a scope screen and the masking panels that you mentioned would be a nice solution, because the screen and picture would look fitted in either format. When you suggest 130, do you mean H130 like Chris mentioned above, or the Scope 130 (F130 130W 55H 141.3D) - I'm just worried that a 55 inch tall screen on a 12 foot tall wall would look a little small. You mentioned moving the projector would help. The ceiling is a box beam style, with the beams being about 17 inches tall. I guess I could mount the projector onto one of those beams, but I'd have to figure out how to run the cables up there and through the beam. If so, that would bring it to about 12 feet from the screen.







gil393 said:


> I have the XD on a 200" screen, first row at 9-11 depending on program material. I can barely see the weave at 9 or 10 but it must be a very boring movie for me to look for it. As for guests, they will all be amazed at the setup and will not know to look for a weave, nor will the recognize it as anything objectionable if they happen to see it. A dim picture will however be noticed.



Wow, a 200 screen from only 9 feet away! Is that tiring to watch for extended periods?


----------



## gil393

jcantanixon said:


> Wow, a 200 screen from only 9 feet away! Is that tiring to watch for extended periods?


For movies the front row is 11 feet, 2nd row is 16, 3rd row is 22 (all give or take a bit). Since the 2nd and 3rd rows each have 8 seats the first row is only used during very popular movies. For the Super Bowl we have 5 rows and utilize temporary seating. It takes a fanatic to sit in the front row couch, usually a couple of kids. I can't sit that close for sports I get motion sickness. I usually don't sit in the front for movies either, but some people just gravitate toward it.


----------



## skylarlove1999

gil393 said:


> I have the XD on a 200" screen, first row at 9-11 depending on program material. I can barely see the weave at 9 or 10 but it must be a very boring movie for me to look for it. As for guests, they will all be amazed at the setup and will not know to look for a weave, nor will the recognize it as anything objectionable if they happen to see it. A dim picture will however be noticed.


Would love to see some pictures of your Cinema. Pretty please??

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## rossandwendy

jcantanixon said:


> Thanks Ross. This is my first dedicated theater build and I want it to have some wow factor. I was thinking that using a scope screen and the masking panels that you mentioned would be a nice solution, because the screen and picture would look fitted in either format. When you suggest 130, do you mean H130 like Chris mentioned above, or the Scope 130 (F130 130W 55H 141.3D) - I'm just worried that a 55 inch tall screen on a 12 foot tall wall would look a little small. You mentioned moving the projector would help. The ceiling is a box beam style, with the beams being about 17 inches tall. I guess I could mount the projector onto one of those beams, but I'd have to figure out how to run the cables up there and through the beam. If so, that would bring it to about 12 feet from the screen.


I know how tough these decisions are, I have spent countless hours researching and thinking on screen parameters, viewing angles, etc and it can get paralyzing. 

One of the options Seymour mentions on the website is CIA - constant image area. Chris would build you a screen that is about 2.07 aspect ratio, so when watching scope films you get the full width, say 130" wide, but then for 1/85/1.78 material you aren't shrinking down to that comparatively real small size you'd be stuck with on a 2.35 screen - instead you would get 63" tall and around 115" wide, still very immersive and about equal in square footage area to your scope images. That's the way several of us on the forums are watching and you just can't beat it in my opinion, neither aspect ratio is being compromised, each is very impressive. The icing on the cake is Chris providing 4 masking panels so it all looks perfect! 

When I started years ago projecting and had a CIW 16:9 screen I was always disappointed with scope films looking too small in height, then when I switched to CIH 2.35:1 screen I hated how my 1.85/1.78 content shrunk down to where immersion and wow factor was gone, and now with CIA all of it looks great.

Ross


----------



## tcramer

chriscmore said:


> Image: 120" x 67.5"
> Outer frame size: 125.3" x 72.8" (1.3" deep)
> 
> The recommended locations for the french cleats would be 25.3" in from each corner, although you can move them out if you see any barrel distortion, or inward if you see any pincushioning of the frame.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris



Thank you! I ended up going with the continuous Precision frame, but I assume that's still the recommended placement for the cleats. Appreciate the tip.


----------



## kemannthey

Is everything ok with this company?
Their 2 website have been 503 error for days.


----------



## avsBuddy

As far as we know, everything is fine. There is an issue with their site hosting service.


----------



## thrillcat

kemannthey said:


> Is everything ok with this company?
> Their 2 website have been 503 error for days.




The company is fine. Their hosting service had an outage which has apparently caused a software issue on the servers. 

If you need assistance they can be reached by phone or email in the meantime, which are easily found with the Google machine. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skylarlove1999

kemannthey said:


> Is everything ok with this company?
> Their 2 website have been 503 error for days.


They are better than ever . Unfortunately their website service provider has had a server issue for over a week now. You can reach sales by emailing Jon Kaisand [email protected]

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

Indeed. We're working overtime making screens but ironically have this "unemployed" appearance online. Our service provider, GKG, is one of the big ones and a registrar. So as soon as I get out of their purgatory I'll be moving to Amazon or Google. If one of those go out, it's a sign of the apocalypse.

Call 515-268-3369 or 515-450-5694
email [email protected] or [email protected]

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Krbass

Some pics of my 130" Centerstage XD screen I built. This screen looks amazing. Very very happy with it.









Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## rossandwendy

Krbass said:


> Some pics of my 130" Centerstage XD screen I built. This screen looks amazing. Very very happy with it.[/IMG]
> 
> Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


Looking good!

Ross


----------



## jconjason

chriscmore said:


> Indeed. We're working overtime making screens but ironically have this "unemployed" appearance online. Our service provider, GKG, is one of the big ones and a registrar. So as soon as I get out of their purgatory I'll be moving to Amazon or Google. If one of those go out, it's a sign of the apocalypse.
> 
> 
> 
> Call 515-268-3369 or 515-450-5694
> 
> email [email protected] or [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


Chris, I sure hope you are going to request reimbursement from the hosting company for the downtime and potential loss of business due to their failures!


----------



## chriscmore

While they're rebuilding them, these archive sites work pretty well if you don't need the shopping cart function.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190808180028/http://www.seymourav.com/default.asp

https://web.archive.org/web/20190903022113/http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/

Boo,
Chris


----------



## skylarlove1999

Seymour AV website is back up and running. Thank goodness. Hope all is well @chriscmore 

http://www.seymourav.com/

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

skylarlove1999 said:


> Seymour AV website is back up and running. Thank goodness. Hope all is well @chriscmore
> 
> http://www.seymourav.com/
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


I wish that GKG would have told me in the beginning, but what I've pieced together is that their Windows based server took a dump and our .asp based site fell into the purgatory of "we're working on it." We finally got set up with a new account on a Linux server and modified the site to work on it. It's not perfect, there'll be dodgy formatting for example, but while we take on the larger project of moving elsewhere and hopefully updating things, it will do for now.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## skylarlove1999

chriscmore said:


> I wish that GKG would have told me in the beginning, but what I've pieced together is that their Windows based server took a dump and our .asp based site fell into the purgatory of "we're working on it." We finally got set up with a new account on a Linux server and modified the site to work on it. It's not perfect, there'll be dodgy formatting for example, but while we take on the larger project of moving elsewhere and hopefully updating things, it will do for now.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


Inwardly I am sure you have been a snarling Rottweiler but outwardly you have been cool as a cucumber. Much respect. 

Sincerely,

Tristan Jones

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## sor

Glad it’s back up. I feel bad, I worked in web hosting for years and never heard of GKG.


----------



## jcantanixon

Krbass said:


> Some pics of my 130" Centerstage XD screen I built. This screen looks amazing. Very very happy with it.



Nice!! So that's the H130 (130" wide/149" diag) or is that 130" diag? You said you're 10 feet away and can only see the weave if you're looking for it, right? What speaker set up are you using?


My current paralysis is trying to figure out a good LCR. Started looking at full size and a false wall, switched to in-wall, and now thinking about getting some thinner on-wall speakers. Does anyone have a solid design for spacing a fixed projector screen out 5-6" away from the wall?


----------



## Krbass

jcantanixon said:


> Nice!! So that's the H130 (130" wide/149" diag) or is that 130" diag? You said you're 10 feet away and can only see the weave if you're looking for it, right? What speaker set up are you using?
> 
> 
> My current paralysis is trying to figure out a good LCR. Started looking at full size and a false wall, switched to in-wall, and now thinking about getting some thinner on-wall speakers. Does anyone have a solid design for spacing a fixed projector screen out 5-6" away from the wall?


It's 130" diagonal. The weave is only noticeable to me during very bright scenes and I have to be looking for it.

Current speaker setup is a placeholder. I have Andrew Jones pioneers and a Polk center. Once spring comes and I have more time I want to build 3 DIYSG HT10s. I have sub drivers for a full Marty and 2 VBSS.

I am extremely happy with the screen material. I am using a JVC X790 in eco mode and it's so bright. HDR also looks fantastic and that was what made me look at the centerstage, it has really good gain for an AT screen. If I had stuck with spandex I'd be in high lamp mode and even then I doubt I'd have the brightness I have now. 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## tbraden32

jcantanixon said:


> Nice!! So that's the H130 (130" wide/149" diag) or is that 130" diag? You said you're 10 feet away and can only see the weave if you're looking for it, right? What speaker set up are you using?
> 
> 
> My current paralysis is trying to figure out a good LCR. Started looking at full size and a false wall, switched to in-wall, and now thinking about getting some thinner on-wall speakers. Does anyone have a solid design for spacing a fixed projector screen out 5-6" away from the wall?




I did exactly what you are wanting. I used JBL SCL-3s directly behind my screen, they are inwalls with backer boxes 6” deep! so I mounted them on wall basically with building a false wall to hold them. Will send pictures if you need some


----------



## BIC2

jcantanixon said:


> Nice!! So that's the H130 (130" wide/149" diag) or is that 130" diag? You said you're 10 feet away and can only see the weave if you're looking for it, right? What speaker set up are you using?
> 
> My current paralysis is trying to figure out a good LCR. Started looking at full size and a false wall, switched to in-wall, and now thinking about getting some thinner on-wall speakers. Does anyone have a solid design for spacing a fixed projector screen out 5-6" away from the wall?


I also have the H130 (149" diag). Behind it (and all around the room) are Triad Silver InWall & InCeiling speakers. They're great (looks & performance), can't imagine anything better.


----------



## chriscmore

Yes, the site is down again. Our provider is also a registrar, so it makes our migration plan a bit more complicated. We have been working on it, so when they're back up (ICANN is insisting they will be), we'll move to a more reliable host. Is it 5 o'clock yet?


----------



## blake

Blackdevil77 said:


> I'm 99% sold on the center stage XD material based on the research I've done, but I would like to run my idea in this thread anyway since most of you have experience with both screen materials.
> 
> The screen size will be ~12 feet wide with a 2:35 aspect ratio (SeymourAV's website is down at the moment so I can't get the exact width). The throw distance will be about 18' 11" and the projector will likely be a JVC RS2000/NX7. The eyes of the viewers in the front row will be about 9.5'-10' from the screen. I want the most acoustically transparent fabric possible because audio is a priority for me over picture (I do a lot of music listening). The speakers are JBL M2's. I know the XD is the more acoustically transparent material, but then I saw a graph that shows the UF actually having less of a high end roll off? What do you guys think?


You are at 65 degree horizontal view angle (1.86 x screen height). This is front row territory in a commercial theater.


----------



## Blackdevil77

blake said:


> Blackdevil77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 99% sold on the center stage XD material based on the research I've done, but I would like to run my idea in this thread anyway since most of you have experience with both screen materials.
> 
> The screen size will be ~12 feet wide with a 2:35 aspect ratio (SeymourAV's website is down at the moment so I can't get the exact width). The throw distance will be about 18' 11" and the projector will likely be a JVC RS2000/NX7. The eyes of the viewers in the front row will be about 9.5'-10' from the screen. I want the most acoustically transparent fabric possible because audio is a priority for me over picture (I do a lot of music listening). The speakers are JBL M2's. I know the XD is the more acoustically transparent material, but then I saw a graph that shows the UF actually having less of a high end roll off? What do you guys think?
> 
> 
> 
> You are at 65 degree horizontal view angle (1.86 x screen height). This is front row territory in a commercial theater.
Click to expand...

Is that a bad thing? Commercial theaters around here are extremely inconsistent. Some front rows are fine as far as distance, and some are completely ridiculous and right under the screen where you’re looking straight up at the screen.


----------



## Ladeback

Blackdevil77 said:


> I'm 99% sold on the center stage XD material based on the research I've done, but I would like to run my idea in this thread anyway since most of you have experience with both screen materials.
> 
> The screen size will be ~12 feet wide with a 2:35 aspect ratio (SeymourAV's website is down at the moment so I can't get the exact width). The throw distance will be about 18' 11" and the projector will likely be a JVC RS2000/NX7. The eyes of the viewers in the front row will be about 9.5'-10' from the screen. I want the most acoustically transparent fabric possible because audio is a priority for me over picture (I do a lot of music listening). The speakers are JBL M2's. I know the XD is the more acoustically transparent material, but then I saw a graph that shows the UF actually having less of a high end roll off? What do you guys think?


That's a big screen sitting that close based on calculators I have ran, but if you are used to sitting close go for it. Here is a theater I have been in for movies in my area and eyes to screen in the front row is around 9' to 10' I believe. @ChldsPlay has 120" 2.35:1 120" wide AT Seymour screen made from the XD fabric. I haven't ever noticed the weave on it and his theater sounds and looks awesome. He is also has the JVC DLA0NX7. 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/2466809-ht-month-hodor-theater.html


----------



## BIC2

Blackdevil77 said:


> I'm 99% sold on the center stage XD material based on the research I've done, but I would like to run my idea in this thread anyway since most of you have experience with both screen materials.
> 
> The screen size will be ~12 feet wide with a 2:35 aspect ratio (SeymourAV's website is down at the moment so I can't get the exact width). The throw distance will be about 18' 11" and the projector will likely be a JVC RS2000/NX7. The eyes of the viewers in the front row will be about 9.5'-10' from the screen. I want the most acoustically transparent fabric possible because audio is a priority for me over picture (I do a lot of music listening). The speakers are JBL M2's. I know the XD is the more acoustically transparent material, but then I saw a graph that shows the UF actually having less of a high end roll off? What do you guys think?


I have Epson 6050, XD screen 16:9, 130" wide, 16.5' throw, 11' to first row. For 16:9, I find this max comfortable size. For 2:35, 130" wide is fine, could probably do 140" OK. Given you'll be a foot closer, I'd stick with 130". Or, do what I did; bought projector and watched it on wall (unfortunately for that use, dark gray) for a few months before deciding on screen size.


----------



## Blackdevil77

Ladeback said:


> That's a big screen sitting that close based on calculators I have ran, but if you are used to sitting close go for it. Here is a theater I have been in for movies in my area and eyes to screen in the front row is around 9' to 10' I believe. @ChldsPlay has 120" 2.35:1 120" wide AT Seymour screen made from the XD fabric. I haven't ever noticed the weave on it and his theater sounds and looks awesome. He is also has the JVC DLA0NX7.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/2466809-ht-month-hodor-theater.html





BIC2 said:


> I have Epson 6050, XD screen 16:9, 130" wide, 16.5' throw, 11' to first row. For 16:9, I find this max comfortable size. For 2:35, 130" wide is fine, could probably do 140" OK. Given you'll be a foot closer, I'd stick with 130". Or, do what I did; bought projector and watched it on wall (unfortunately for that use, dark gray) for a few months before deciding on screen size.


My biggest deciding factor for screen size is speaker placement, unfortunately. 12 feet wide is the absolute smallest I can go to be able to get the speakers behind the screen even remotely in the ideal spot. If I try to put the L/R speakers on the side of the screen instead of behind it, than I have to significantly shrink the screen size. The speakers are very big (JBL M2's, Subs are JBL 5628's)


----------



## Ladeback

Blackdevil77 said:


> My biggest deciding factor for screen size is speaker placement, unfortunately. 12 feet wide is the absolute smallest I can go to be able to get the speakers behind the screen even remotely in the ideal spot. If I try to put the L/R speakers on the side of the screen instead of behind it, than I have to significantly shrink the screen size. The speakers are very big (JBL M2's, Subs are JBL 5628's)


Do you have a build thread? What are your room dimensions? Are you trying to stay with the a Dolby Atmos speaker layout? I am just trying to understand your layout.


----------



## Blackdevil77

Ladeback said:


> Do you have a build thread? What are your room dimensions? Are you trying to stay with the a Dolby Atmos speaker layout? I am just trying to understand your layout.


Don't have a build thread yet, but here is the design with all the dimensions. Yes, the blue circles are the atmos speakers. Everything is to scale. As you can see, the speakers and subs behind the screen are absolutely massive.


----------



## skylarlove1999

Blackdevil77 said:


> Don't have a build thread yet, but here is the design with all the dimensions. Yes, the blue circles are the atmos speakers. Everything is to scale. As you can see, the speakers and subs behind the screen are absolutely massive.


I can't wait to see your build thread this looks freaking amazing

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ladeback

Blackdevil77 said:


> Don't have a build thread yet, but here is the design with all the dimensions. Yes, the blue circles are the atmos speakers. Everything is to scale. As you can see, the speakers and subs behind the screen are absolutely massive.[/QUOTE
> 
> For your Dolby from LCR you can be between 22 and 30 degrees. So from 10' from front row to screen the speakers could be spaced from 100" to 138" apart. You should be able to move your subs in a little and then your Left and right. A good width for a 2.35:1 AT screen would around 138' or so and I think you speakers would all fit behind it. This is a 150" 2.35:1 diagonal. I believe Seymour recommends using the UV if sitting closer then 12'. You could build your theater, order some samples to try out and see what looks best. I think either one is not going to hurt the sound of your speakers. I was noticing that your back row is kind of cramped. Since the front row is the main row you could go commercial style theater seats to save some room. 4Seating sells them. Seatcraft has Vanguard that are only 31" deep when the seat is down and recline a little. I am looking at maybe using some of these. They take up less width as well. Here they are below.
> 
> https://4seating.com/seatcraft-vanguard-movie-theater-chairs


----------



## Blackdevil77

skylarlove1999 said:


> I can't wait to see your build thread this looks freaking amazing
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Thank you!



Ladeback said:


> For your Dolby from LCR you can be between 22 and 30 degrees. So from 10' from front row to screen the speakers could be spaced from 100" to 138" apart. You should be able to move your subs in a little and then your Left and right. A good width for a 2.35:1 AT screen would around 138' or so and I think you speakers would all fit behind it. This is a 150" 2.35:1 diagonal. I believe Seymour recommends using the UV if sitting closer then 12'. You could build your theater, order some samples to try out and see what looks best. I think either one is not going to hurt the sound of your speakers. I was noticing that your back row is kind of cramped. Since the front row is the main row you could go commercial style theater seats to save some room. 4Seating sells them. Seatcraft has Vanguard that are only 31" deep when the seat is down and recline a little. I am looking at maybe using some of these. They take up less width as well. Here they are below.
> 
> https://4seating.com/seatcraft-vanguard-movie-theater-chairs


I'm trying to keep the subs at 1/4 and 3/4 distance to keep axial modes at bay and attempt to get consistent seat to seat bass performance. I know the splayed walls kind of throws that approach out the window, so I'm trying to keep the subs 1/4 and 3/4 of the average width of the room. Take some measurements, then go from there. Basically, the size screen I get will depend on how everything measures seat to seat at various locations. If I can put the subs closer together towards the center without losing that even coverage, then I can get a smaller screen. 

I saw their recommendation. I've read reviews of the material on here as well. Most seem to say the weave is only visible during bright scenes if you're close enough and looking for it and most seem to say if they had to choose between the brighter image, or no visible weave up close, they would choose the brighter image. I think I'm in this camp as well. Especially since the throw distance from projector to screen is almost 19 feet!

As far as the back row, once the framing is up and the room is built, I'll try and set up a model of the chairs to get a feel for how it would be. If it does feel cramped, I may do a 4 seat row, or theater seating like you linked.


----------



## tbraden32

My XD Screen Review:

Was recommended the XD screen from Seymour by my designer Nyal. Researched the crap out of this, got multiple samples including V6, UF and a few others. Finally, purchased a 110” Wide 16:9 XD Premier Screen then later added the masking panels. 

I was not expecting this type of quality of packaging and overall experience from an online vendor. The screen came in a well packaged box and was only four pieces, and fit perfectly. Amazing fit and finish! 

I sit approximately 11‘10“ eyeballs to the screen. When The lights are on in the room and nothing is being displayed the weave is very noticeable. Once the lights go out and the movie is being played I do not recognize the weave at all unless it is a pure white scene. If screen has any color at all, there is no weave visible. 

My room is completely light controlled and I am paired with a JVC RS2000. The colors and pictures produced is amazing. Cannot believe this is a projector and screen! I have my SCL-3s approx 1” behind the screen with no issues. 

Would recommend Seymour Products. 


















Behind Screen showing the JBLs and Room Treatments.


----------



## avsBuddy

Do you have pictures with the masking panels on?


----------



## skylarlove1999

tbraden32 said:


> My XD Screen Review:
> 
> Was recommended the XD screen from Seymour by my designer Nyal. Researched the crap out of this, got multiple samples including V6, UF and a few others. Finally, purchased a 110” Wide 16:9 XD Premier Screen then later added the masking panels.
> 
> I was not expecting this type of quality of packaging and overall experience from an online vendor. The screen came in a well packaged box and was only four pieces, and fit perfectly. Amazing fit and finish!
> 
> I sit approximately 11‘10“ eyeballs to the screen. When The lights are on in the room and nothing is being displayed the weave is very noticeable. Once the lights go out and the movie is being played I do not recognize the weave at all unless it is a pure white scene. If screen has any color at all, there is no weave visible.
> 
> My room is completely light controlled and I am paired with a JVC RS2000. The colors and pictures produced is amazing. Cannot believe this is a projector and screen! I have my SCL-3s approx 1” behind the screen with no issues.
> 
> Would recommend Seymour Products.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behind Screen showing the JBLs and Room Treatments.


Thank you for sharing it looks like a really amazing home theater and experience

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## tcramer

@chriscmore - Any eta on when the site will be back up? I'd like to look at multiple size options, basically all the specs that showed up on the Screen or Shop pages.

Or, is there a PDF copy of it that could be sent if I emailed? Thanks!


----------



## tbraden32

avsBuddy said:


> Do you have pictures with the masking panels on?




Not yet, I’ll take some and post for others too see.


----------



## avsBuddy

tcramer said:


> @chriscmore - Any eta on when the site will be back up? I'd like to look at multiple size options, basically all the specs that showed up on the Screen or Shop pages.
> 
> Or, is there a PDF copy of it that could be sent if I emailed? Thanks!


Site is live. http://www.seymourav.com/


----------



## tcramer

avsBuddy said:


> Site is live. http://www.seymourav.com/


Thanks for the notice as it was down earlier when I checked. I took screenshots this time so I'm good if it goes down again.


----------



## BIC2

Ladeback said:


> Blackdevil77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have a build thread yet, but here is the design with all the dimensions. Yes, the blue circles are the atmos speakers. Everything is to scale. As you can see, the speakers and subs behind the screen are absolutely massive.[/QUOTE
> 
> For your Dolby from LCR you can be between 22 and 30 degrees. So from 10' from front row to screen the speakers could be spaced from 100" to 138" apart. You should be able to move your subs in a little and then your Left and right. A good width for a 2.35:1 AT screen would around 138' or so and I think you speakers would all fit behind it. This is a 150" 2.35:1 diagonal. I believe Seymour recommends using the UV if sitting closer then 12'. You could build your theater, order some samples to try out and see what looks best. I think either one is not going to hurt the sound of your speakers. I was noticing that your back row is kind of cramped. Since the front row is the main row you could go commercial style theater seats to save some room. 4Seating sells them. Seatcraft has Vanguard that are only 31" deep when the seat is down and recline a little. I am looking at maybe using some of these. They take up less width as well. Here they are below.
> 
> https://4seating.com/seatcraft-vanguard-movie-theater-chairs
> 
> 
> 
> Another option is to have the smaller screen and cover your speakers with black AT material or cloth that matches your wall color.
Click to expand...


----------



## StevenC56

Here's an FYI for those of you with a Seymour retractable screen that uses an RF remote control. Kind of a long read ahead, but here goes:

Recently while performing an Atmos upgrade to our HT, we decided to replace a 30 year old brass Casablanca fan with a newer all black remote controlled fan. We added 4 in-ceiling speakers that I painted black, and also painted 4 small ceiling lights that were white. So all fixtures are now blacked out. The fan had an option for a "Bond Hub" that would basically make the fam "smart", so we went with that. Over the last 10 years of owning our CenterStage XD retractable, I've looked for universal remotes that would copy RF codes. There just isn't anything out there! I even checked with Seymour over the years, and they didn't know of anything either. I had a Harmony Ultimate Home, and now an Elite. Even the Harmony Home hub only transmits IR and through IP. So I install the new fan, and find that the remote is RF. How the heck is this going to work I say to myself? So I install the fan, and then open up the box for the Bond hub. After registering an account with Bond, this thing had me use the fan's remote for setup with it's Android app, (IOS app is available as well) and then it recognized the RF signal from my new fan's remote. The fan now worked with the phone app through my house's WiFi. But why stop there-The Bond hub is suppose to work with Alexa and Google Home as well. So I figure out how to add that to my Google Home network and Voila, I can now turn the fan and it's light on and off by saying "Hey Google"! Pretty cool, right? So all of a sudden the light bulb over my head goes off. This Bond hub somehow takes IP instruction and transmits RF. It copies RF codes! It not only can control fans, but also motorized drapes and other devices that use RF too. So I go into the Bond app and tell it I'm adding a motorized window shade to my account. It then allows me to us my screen's remote to transfer the 3 commands. (Up, stop, and down) I was then able to rename the window shade "Projector Screen". The only slight glitch is that you can't change the preset name of the Bond's commands for a window shade which are open, stop, and close. (I contacted Bond support, and at this time there is no way to edit those command labels) I try it with the bond phone app, and it worked! I can raise and lower my screen with my phone! So now to Google home I say. I open the Google home app, and low and behold the "projector Screen" is already there!! Hey Google, open the projector screen I command. Amazing! I can now lower, stop, and raise my Seymour retractable screen using the voice commands. (Open, stop, and close) I'm ecstatic, so I had to share. Now if Harmony would add support for the Bond hub, then I could add that command to my activities. Maybe in the future it will happen. Until then, I'm amazed about this discovery!


----------



## Blackdevil77

BIC2 said:


> Ladeback said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another option is to have the smaller screen and cover your speakers with black AT material or cloth that matches your wall color.
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding the speakers isn't the issue, it's the screen size. If I placed the speakers outside of the screen (on the sides) the screen size would end up being VERY small, because the speakers are so big. That's whether they are hidden or not. If placed behind the screen, the screen would have to be huge to fit everything again, because they're massive.
> 
> What I WAS thinking of doing, is getting a huge screen, put the speakers behind it as needed, then have that black acoustically transparent material cover the sides and top/bottom of the screen to give the appearance of an appropriate sized screen. Everything would fit behind the screen properly, and the screen/image would be an ideal size.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ladeback

Blackdevil77 said:


> BIC2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding the speakers isn't the issue, it's the screen size. If I placed the speakers outside of the screen (on the sides) the screen size would end up being VERY small, because the speakers are so big. That's whether they are hidden or not. If placed behind the screen, the screen would have to be huge to fit everything again, because they're massive.
> 
> 
> 
> What I WAS thinking of doing, is getting a huge screen, put the speakers behind it as needed, then have that black acoustically transparent material cover the sides and top/bottom of the screen to give the appearance of an appropriate sized screen. Everything would fit behind the screen properly, and the screen/image would be an ideal size.
> 
> 
> 
> You need the Transformer screen from Screen Innovations. You get a large 2.40:1 screen and set it to what you want. Now there are certain areas where you put speakers.
> https://www.screeninnovations.com/screen/transformer/
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


----------



## JamesVG81

Blackdevil77 said:


> BIC2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ladeback said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another option is to have the smaller screen and cover your speakers with black AT material or cloth that matches your wall color.
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding the speakers isn't the issue, it's the screen size. If I placed the speakers outside of the screen (on the sides) the screen size would end up being VERY small, because the speakers are so big. That's whether they are hidden or not. If placed behind the screen, the screen would have to be huge to fit everything again, because they're massive.
> 
> What I WAS thinking of doing, is getting a huge screen, put the speakers behind it as needed, then have that black acoustically transparent material cover the sides and top/bottom of the screen to give the appearance of an appropriate sized screen. Everything would fit behind the screen properly, and the screen/image would be an ideal size.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m in the same boat. I have a 138inch diagonal 2.35:1 screen from my old setup. But the new LCR JBL 4722n’s with full Marty subs will take up 142 inches of the front wall. So if I use the current screen I’ll have a frame rail going through part of the wave guide of both of my left and right channel. My screen wall is going to be right at 150 inches wide. If I can I’m going to either order a screen or build one with XD material that will take up the entire front wall of my theater.
Click to expand...


----------



## thrillcat

tbraden32 said:


> My XD Screen Review:
> 
> Was recommended the XD screen from Seymour by my designer Nyal. Researched the crap out of this, got multiple samples including V6, UF and a few others. Finally, purchased a 110” Wide 16:9 XD Premier Screen then later added the masking panels.
> 
> I was not expecting this type of quality of packaging and overall experience from an online vendor. The screen came in a well packaged box and was only four pieces, and fit perfectly. Amazing fit and finish!
> 
> I sit approximately 11‘10“ eyeballs to the screen. When The lights are on in the room and nothing is being displayed the weave is very noticeable. Once the lights go out and the movie is being played I do not recognize the weave at all unless it is a pure white scene. If screen has any color at all, there is no weave visible.
> 
> My room is completely light controlled and I am paired with a JVC RS2000. The colors and pictures produced is amazing. Cannot believe this is a projector and screen! I have my SCL-3s approx 1” behind the screen with no issues.
> 
> Would recommend Seymour Products.


Seymour should be considered more of a "boutique" brand than an "internet direct" brand. Like a good craft beer. Everything is made in the USA by hand to order, not shipping from a warehouse in China.


----------



## Blackdevil77

Ladeback said:


> Blackdevil77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need the Transformer screen from Screen Innovations. You get a large 2.40:1 screen and set it to what you want. Now there are certain areas where you put speakers.
> https://www.screeninnovations.com/screen/transformer/
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> That would be great if it came in the XD woven screen material. I don't want a perf screen and don't have enough room behind the screen to space the speakers far enough behind a perf screen.
> 
> 
> 
> JamesVG81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackdevil77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m in the same boat. I have a 138inch diagonal 2.35:1 screen from my old setup. But the new LCR JBL 4722n’s with full Marty subs will take up 142 inches of the front wall. So if I use the current screen I’ll have a frame rail going through part of the wave guide of both of my left and right channel. My screen wall is going to be right at 140 inches wide. If I can I’m going to either order a screen or build one with XD material that will take up the entire front wall of my theater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, exactly my situation. As a result, I have to go either really big, or really small.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## rossandwendy

Blackdevil77 said:


> BIC2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I WAS thinking of doing, is getting a huge screen, put the speakers behind it as needed, then have that black acoustically transparent material cover the sides and top/bottom of the screen to give the appearance of an appropriate sized screen. Everything would fit behind the screen properly, and the screen/image would be an ideal size.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have a good idea here. Seymour could make those panels for you. Better to go too large and mask down if needed, than to go too small and regret it, IMO.
> 
> Ross
Click to expand...


----------



## blake

Is the Centrestage XD a better material than Enlightor-Neo (even though the latter is thru the more premium S-SE channel). 

It looks like XD has better gain (0.9 vs 0.8) and better AT properties !


----------



## Mike Garrett

blake said:


> Is the Centrestage XD a better material than Enlightor-Neo (even though the latter is thru the more premium S-SE channel).
> 
> It looks like XD has better gain (0.9 vs 0.8) and better AT properties !


Neo is much smoother, so it will provide a sharper image. Neo can be viewed much closer, without seeing the weave. XD has one advantage and that is, slightly brighter.


----------



## sor

Maybe this has been asked before, but is there value in having the Millibel backing with XD if everything behind the screen is black? I assume there may still be a fair amount of light bleed.


----------



## thrillcat

sor said:


> Maybe this has been asked before, but is there value in having the Millibel backing with XD if everything behind the screen is black? I assume there may still be a fair amount of light bleed.


I had entirely black behind my screen...LCRs and Linacoustic. The black horns were reflective enough that I still wanted the Millibel. Even black can be reflective.


----------



## Lawton020165

Hello everyone,
I was hoping I could get "chriscmore" from Seymour to contact me(I dont have enough posts to PM) I need to confirm the authenticity of a guy trying to sell me a new Seymour screen who says he works for them but has a gmail address, the screen on checking I couldnt find. Maybe all is good but it would be nice to get confirmation.
Thanks everyone
Stephen


----------



## thrillcat

Call the shop. 515-268-3369

The gmail addresses were just proven to be the best laid plan, as their web hosting service, which was also where he bought the domain, went offline for over a week. Had he simply used domain-based emails, he would’ve had zero contact with customers. 

Call the shop. Talk to the whole staff. 

(Full disclosure, I don’t work there, but I know them well, as we live in the same community. Saw Chris two days ago. He exists.)



Lawton020165 said:


> Hello everyone,
> I was hoping I could get "chriscmore" from Seymour to contact me(I dont have enough posts to PM) I need to confirm the authenticity of a guy trying to sell me a new Seymour screen who says he works for them but has a gmail address, the screen on checking I couldnt find. Maybe all is good but it would be nice to get confirmation.
> Thanks everyone
> Stephen


----------



## skylarlove1999

Lawton020165 said:


> Hello everyone,
> I was hoping I could get "chriscmore" from Seymour to contact me(I dont have enough posts to PM) I need to confirm the authenticity of a guy trying to sell me a new Seymour screen who says he works for them but has a gmail address, the screen on checking I couldnt find. Maybe all is good but it would be nice to get confirmation.
> Thanks everyone
> Stephen


Chris and Jon both use Gmail addresses as do the rest of Seymour. They are all very professional and courteous. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## ece2k2

I am planning to get a 200” wide 2.35:1 screen with Side masking panels to convert it into a 16:9 format. I would be using a JVC RS4500 projector and my room would be a fully light controlled bat cave.

My viewing distance would be about 15 feet. I need the screen and masking panels to be completely acoustically transparent as I would be placing JBL M2 speakers behind the screen and I think I would need the highest possible gain as I am opting for a big screen that could make RS4500 struggle to light up.

Unfortunately I wouldn’t be able to test the samples as I am not based out of US. Please clarify a couple of things:

1. Is Centre Stage XD the right AT material for my application or if I need to look at other options such as UF and Enlightor 4K?

2. I believe I need the black backing for the screen. Please confirm.

3. I have come up with the below configuration and I am not sure if I am looking at the right components/materials.
Fixed Frame Screen:
F200: 2.35 200”w (217.4”d)
Center Stage XD + black
Premier 3.3”
+
Magnetic Masking Panels:
CH235 (sides)
200”w original image
Millibel AT (3” velvet)

Please let me know if there is any scope for improvement or if there is any issue with my plan.

Thank you!


----------



## rossandwendy

ece2k2 said:


> I am planning to get a 200” wide 2.35:1 screen with Side masking panels to convert it into a 16:9 format. I would be using a JVC RS4500 projector and my room would be a fully light controlled bat cave.
> 
> My viewing distance would be about 15 feet. I need the screen and masking panels to be completely acoustically transparent as I would be placing JBL M2 speakers behind the screen and I think I would need the highest possible gain as I am opting for a big screen that could make RS4500 struggle to light up.
> 
> Unfortunately I wouldn’t be able to test the samples as I am not based out of US. Please clarify a couple of things:
> 
> 1. Is Centre Stage XD the right AT material for my application or if I need to look at other options such as UF and Enlightor 4K?
> 
> 2. I believe I need the black backing for the screen. Please confirm.
> 
> 3. I have come up with the below configuration and I am not sure if I am looking at the right components/materials.
> Fixed Frame Screen:
> F200: 2.35 200”w (217.4”d)
> Center Stage XD + black
> Premier 3.3”
> +
> Magnetic Masking Panels:
> CH235 (sides)
> 200”w original image
> Millibel AT (3” velvet)
> 
> Please let me know if there is any scope for improvement or if there is any issue with my plan.
> 
> Thank you!


1. XD is exactly the material you need, you'll want the highest gain, and from 15' viewing distance XD will look excellent
2. Unless the entire area behind the screen is blacked out (preferably with velvet), you will want the black backing to prevent reflections including from the speakers
3. That configuration looks correct based on the Seymour website
4. I am excited for you and also jealous  200" wide is going to be truly cinematic!

Cheers,
Ross


----------



## blake

ece2k2 :

Note even on high laser your looking at just under 20 fL on this size screen (assuming no DCR anamorphic lens). This may be adequate if you have a Lumagen for dynamic tone mapping, but mid-20s fL is preferable even in this scenario.

Edit : error above. If using the zoom method for scope you are at 15-16 fL (depending if you use the full 17:9 panel aspect mode)


----------



## Lawton020165

Thanks guys for the heads up. I will call the shop as he just sent me a Paypal invoice from the Czech Republic. I am overseas hence the apprehension.


Thanks again
Stephen


----------



## Ladeback

blake said:


> ece2k2 :
> 
> Note even on high laser your looking at just under 20 fL on this size screen (assuming no DCR anamorphic lens). This may be adequate if you have a Lumagen for dynamic tone mapping, but mid-20s fL is preferable even in this scenario.


Doesn't the fl depend on where is mounting the projector? If he mounts it where the lens is 20' from the screen he should be close to the mid 20's for fl's. Now this is a big screen and this would be the projector I would chose for it if I had the money. Adding a anamorphic lens bumps the fl's up a lot and then you could mount the project farther back then 20' from the calculators I have looked at.

I have seen the older XD material sitting about 10' back and I didn't notice the weave at all. A JVC NX7 was being used and was an awesome picture on the screen.


----------



## chriscmore

thrillcat said:


> Saw Chris two days ago. He exists.


What a Coronavirus-thing to say.


----------



## blake

Ladeback said:


> Doesn't the fl depend on where is mounting the projector? If he mounts it where the lens is 20' from the screen he should be close to the mid 20's for fl's. Now this is a big screen and this would be the projector I would chose for it if I had the money. Adding a anamorphic lens bumps the fl's up a lot and then you could mount the project farther back then 20' from the calculators I have looked at.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen the older XD material sitting about 10' back and I didn't notice the weave at all. A JVC NX7 was being used and was an awesome picture on the screen.




I calculated 16 fL with lens as close as possible. In high laser your 3000 lumens drops to 2500 after calibration and about 2350 with this screen gain. At 155 square foot screen, that’s 15 fL. If using full 17:9 panel it’s 16. 

**Edited for mistake in calculations not factoring projector zoom mode “loss”


----------



## thrillcat

chriscmore said:


> thrillcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saw Chris two days ago. He exists.
> 
> 
> 
> What a Coronavirus-thing to say. /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif
Click to expand...

I hope you washed your hands before typing that.


----------



## chriscmore

Check out this nice video tour from @Youthman of @SOWK very well thought out theater. While I'd have a skepticism about the seat and fan effects, Tony would understand and his theater would be the place to try it out.


----------



## tbraden32

Received my masking panels a few weeks ago for my 16:9 110” wide XD screen. Same excellent quality as the screen. Since I have some free time due to this social distancing, I installed them last night. 

Super easy retrofit installing some magnets along the top of the premier frame and sides. Here are some pictures. 








Without Masking


----------



## skylarlove1999

tbraden32 said:


> Received my masking panels a few weeks ago for my 16:9 110” wide XD screen. Same excellent quality as the screen. Since I have some free time due to this social distancing, I installed them last night.
> 
> Super easy retrofit installing some magnets along the top of the premier frame and sides. Here are some pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without Masking


Thanks for sharing I too have the masking panels I got them with my Seymour glacier white 120 inch screen 2 years ago. They are a great Improvement to picture quality 4 scope movies

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Krbass

tbraden32 said:


> Received my masking panels a few weeks ago for my 16:9 110” wide XD screen. Same excellent quality as the screen. Since I have some free time due to this social distancing, I installed them last night.
> 
> Super easy retrofit installing some magnets along the top of the premier frame and sides. Here are some pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without Masking


This looks great. I have a DIY Seymour XD Screen that I want to build panels for, not sure how I'll go about it yet. 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## tbraden32

Krbass said:


> This looks great. I have a DIY Seymour XD Screen that I want to build panels for, not sure how I'll go about it yet.
> 
> Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk




I didn’t think that much of having panels as the black bars didn’t bother me that much.......until you have them installed!! Huge difference now.


Would highly recommend masking.


----------



## BIC2

tbraden32 said:


> I didn’t think that much of having panels as the black bars didn’t bother me that much.......until you have them installed!! Huge difference now.
> 
> Would highly recommend masking.


I agree. I tried it without the panels on my 16:9, but did get the magnets pre-installed. After a while, the gray bars were driving me crazy. Big difference with the panels. Downside is storing/installing four panels, top two need a footstool to reach.


----------



## avsBuddy

Can you guys measure how far is screen surface away from the wall? My throw distance is rather tight and I’m trying to get as large image as possible.


----------



## Mike Garrett

ece2k2 said:


> I am planning to get a 200” wide 2.35:1 screen with Side masking panels to convert it into a 16:9 format. I would be using a JVC RS4500 projector and my room would be a fully light controlled bat cave.
> 
> My viewing distance would be about 15 feet. I need the screen and masking panels to be completely acoustically transparent as I would be placing JBL M2 speakers behind the screen and I think I would need the highest possible gain as I am opting for a big screen that could make RS4500 struggle to light up.
> 
> Unfortunately I wouldn’t be able to test the samples as I am not based out of US. Please clarify a couple of things:
> 
> 1. Is Centre Stage XD the right AT material for my application or if I need to look at other options such as UF and Enlightor 4K?
> 
> 2. I believe I need the black backing for the screen. Please confirm.
> 
> 3. I have come up with the below configuration and I am not sure if I am looking at the right components/materials.
> Fixed Frame Screen:
> F200: 2.35 200”w (217.4”d)
> Center Stage XD + black
> Premier 3.3”
> +
> Magnetic Masking Panels:
> CH235 (sides)
> 200”w original image
> Millibel AT (3” velvet)
> 
> Please let me know if there is any scope for improvement or if there is any issue with my plan.
> 
> Thank you!


At 200" wide, XD is not going to be bright enough. At short end of the throw, you are looking at 15FL calibrated.


----------



## Mike Garrett

blake said:


> ece2k2 :
> 
> Note even on high laser your looking at just under 20 fL on this size screen (assuming no DCR anamorphic lens). This may be adequate if you have a Lumagen for dynamic tone mapping, but mid-20s fL is preferable even in this scenario.


Your calculations are not correct. His screen area is 155.56SF, not 118SF. With projector at short end of the throw range, he is looking at 15FL with calibrated RS4500. As far as the projector is concerned, the image size is 112.36" x 200". He could use full panel width for 2.35 and gain about 7% brightness, giving him 16FL.

Added
I would not build a system with a starting point of 16FL and downhill from there.


----------



## blake

Mike Garrett said:


> Your calculations are not correct. His screen area is 155.56SF, not 118SF. With projector at short end of the throw range, he is looking at 15FL with calibrated RS4500. As far as the projector is concerned, the image size is 112.36" x 200". He could use full panel width for 2.35 and gain about 7% brightness, giving him 16FL.
> 
> Added
> I would not build a system with a starting point of 16FL and downhill from there.



Sorry you are right. I forgot the zoom method will waste the light from the black bars on top and bottom. Original post edited.


----------



## tbraden32

avsBuddy said:


> Can you guys measure how far is screen surface away from the wall? My throw distance is rather tight and I’m trying to get as large image as possible.




Less then an inch.


----------



## avsBuddy

Thank you.


----------



## rmerlano

Hi @chriscmore,



One question: For a 150" diagonal 16:9 screen. What is the real size of fabric you send to make a DIY screen? I´m pointing for Center Stage XD



Thank´s!


----------



## chriscmore

rmerlano said:


> Hi @chriscmore,
> 
> 
> 
> One question: For a 150" diagonal 16:9 screen. What is the real size of fabric you send to make a DIY screen? I´m pointing for Center Stage XD
> 
> 
> 
> Thank´s!


The image area would measure 130.7" x 73.5". Assuming a +3" margin to attach to your frame, your total piece size would be 136.7" x 79.5". If you're doing a tilted cut (or having us do it for you), you can fit a 8 degree tilt onto 13 linear feet.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## rmerlano

Thank you!


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk


----------



## tbraden32

Several PMs for Screen shots with (first 3) and without (bottom 3) masking panels 110” wide 16:9 XD Screen.


----------



## skylarlove1999

tbraden32 said:


> Several PMs for Screen shots with (first 3) and without (bottom 3) masking panels 110” wide 16:9 XD Screen.


Beautiful setup.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blackdevil77

I have a question/problem that I'm sure plenty of people have faced before. My issue is, I want an A/T screen (center stage XD) and the ideal size for my room and personal preference would be 11 feet wide. The only issue with this would be placing the large speakers and subs I have behind it. I attached 2 diagrams showing the speakers and sub positioning. The diagram with the speakers in the corners of the room, places the L/R too close together. The diagram with the L/R on the sides, puts the subs closer towards the center of the room, past the 1/4 distance of the front wall mark. 1/4 distance is a little over 3.5 feet, and in that diagram, they would have to be about 4'7" from the side walls. Not sure if that would be a problem or not. 

The optimal placement for the speakers and subs would put the border of the screen right in the center of the L/R speakers. Unfortunately with an 11' wide screen, I don't have enough room on the sides of the screen to place the speakers, unless I shrink the screen size to a little under 10 feet. Which I'm trying to find a way around. I can't get a bigger screen because the heads of those in the front row would cast a shadow on the bottom of the image. 

It SEEMS like the ideal solution that would give me the picture size I want AND be able to place the speakers where they need to be would be to get a huge screen, and just not fill the entire screen with the image. Is there a way to make that not look strange and horrible?

Here are the two diagrams. These are both with an 11 foot wide 2.35:1 screen.


----------



## skylarlove1999

Blackdevil77 said:


> I have a question/problem that I'm sure plenty of people have faced before. My issue is, I want an A/T screen (center stage XD) and the ideal size for my room and personal preference would be 11 feet wide. The only issue with this would be placing the large speakers and subs I have behind it. I attached 2 diagrams showing the speakers and sub positioning. The diagram with the speakers in the corners of the room, places the L/R too close together. The diagram with the L/R on the sides, puts the subs closer towards the center of the room, past the 1/4 distance of the front wall mark. 1/4 distance is a little over 3.5 feet, and in that diagram, they would have to be about 4'7" from the side walls. Not sure if that would be a problem or not.
> 
> 
> 
> The optimal placement for the speakers and subs would put the border of the screen right in the center of the L/R speakers. Unfortunately with an 11' wide screen, I don't have enough room on the sides of the screen to place the speakers, unless I shrink the screen size to a little under 10 feet. Which I'm trying to find a way around. I can't get a bigger screen because the heads of those in the front row would cast a shadow on the bottom of the image.
> 
> 
> 
> It SEEMS like the ideal solution that would give me the picture size I want AND be able to place the speakers where they need to be would be to get a huge screen, and just not fill the entire screen with the image. Is there a way to make that not look strange and horrible?
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the two diagrams. These are both with an 11 foot wide 2.35:1 screen.


What about building a platform to raise all the speakers and subwoofers up to where you would need them to be covered by the AT screen? I understand you are probably trying to keep tweeters at ear level but I am not sure it will make that much of a difference. Just my two cents.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blackdevil77

skylarlove1999 said:


> What about building a platform to raise all the speakers and subwoofers up to where you would need them to be covered by the AT screen? I understand you are probably trying to keep tweeters at ear level but I am not sure it will make that much of a difference. Just my two cents.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Forgive me, I'm not sure what you're saying. The problem I'm having is with the width of the placement. The ideal width would put the L/R speakers right where the border of the appropriate sized screen would be. I would need either a bigger screen and not be able to fill the entire screen with an image, or a much smaller screen and place the speakers on the sides of the screen. There will be a stage that picks up everything about 6 inches off the ground.


----------



## skylarlove1999

Blackdevil77 said:


> Forgive me, I'm not sure what you're saying. The problem I'm having is with the width of the placement. The ideal width would put the L/R speakers right where the border of the appropriate sized screen would be. I would need either a bigger screen and not be able to fill the entire screen with an image, or a much smaller screen and place the speakers on the sides of the screen. There will be a stage that picks up everything about 6 inches off the ground.


My bad. I saw lines across the speakers and thought the issue was vertical not horizontal. I will think more. LOL 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## skylarlove1999

Blackdevil77 said:


> Forgive me, I'm not sure what you're saying. The problem I'm having is with the width of the placement. The ideal width would put the L/R speakers right where the border of the appropriate sized screen would be. I would need either a bigger screen and not be able to fill the entire screen with an image, or a much smaller screen and place the speakers on the sides of the screen. There will be a stage that picks up everything about 6 inches off the ground.


I imagine you have thought about mid wall placement on your sidewalls but do not want the subwoofers in the room? What are your room dimensions ? Is it a rectangular room? 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blackdevil77

skylarlove1999 said:


> I imagine you have thought about mid wall placement on your sidewalls but do not want the subwoofers in the room? What are your room dimensions ? Is it a rectangular room?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Yeah there's no way they can be in the room. The subs are 30" tall, 24" deep and 48" wide. Way too big and intrusive. 

Unfortunately no, the room isn't rectangular. It's an interesting looking shape and an interesting room to be in, but unpredictable. Here's a diagram of the room. Basically it starts at 14'2" from the front and widens to 17'6" by the rear. And the rear wall isn't flat.


----------



## skylarlove1999

Blackdevil77 said:


> Yeah there's no way they can be in the room. The subs are 30" tall, 24" deep and 48" wide. Way too big and intrusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately no, the room isn't rectangular. It's an interesting looking shape and an interesting room to be in, but unpredictable. Here's a diagram of the room. Basically it starts at 14'2" from the front and widens to 17'6" by the rear. And the rear wall isn't flat.


Placing the subwoofer on their sides and then building a platform on top of the subwoofers to place the speakers? Shorten the riser/stage or eliminate it all together. Just spitballing here. 

Any way to create more depth behind the screen? Offset the subwoofers further back against the wall. Speakers in front slightly blocking the subwoofers. Not sure it would impact the sound qualities of either the subs or the speakers.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blackdevil77

skylarlove1999 said:


> Placing the subwoofer on their sides and then building a platform on top of the subwoofers to place the speakers? Shorten the riser/stage or eliminate it all together. Just spitballing here.
> 
> Any way to create more depth behind the screen? Offset the subwoofers further back against the wall. Speakers in front slightly blocking the subwoofers. Not sure it would impact the sound qualities of either the subs or the speakers.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Tried that configuration. Would hit the ceiling, even without a stage. There's a shallow soffit behind the false wall spot concealing some pipes. 

I actually had to move the screen back a bit to be able to fill the screen with the image. If I move it forward and use the zoom, the beam of lights hits the tops of the heads of the people in the first row.


----------



## rossandwendy

Blackdevil77 said:


> It SEEMS like the ideal solution that would give me the picture size I want AND be able to place the speakers where they need to be would be to get a huge screen, and just not fill the entire screen with the image. Is there a way to make that not look strange and horrible?


Seymour could make AT masks to cover the unused portion of the huge screen. Or for less money you could DIY your own masks. I believe you can order the AT masking material from Seymour if you want to make your own.

Ross


----------



## Blackdevil77

rossandwendy said:


> Seymour could make AT masks to cover the unused portion of the huge screen. Or for less money you could DIY your own masks. I believe you can order the AT masking material from Seymour if you want to make your own.
> 
> Ross


That's actually a very interesting idea! I wonder how that would look? What would these panels look like and how would they fix to the screen? Would having 2 layers of A/T fabric in front of the speakers be an issue?


----------



## thrillcat

They’re explained on the website. 

http://www.seymourav.com/masking.php



Blackdevil77 said:


> rossandwendy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seymour could make AT masks to cover the unused portion of the huge screen. Or for less money you could DIY your own masks. I believe you can order the AT masking material from Seymour if you want to make your own.
> 
> Ross
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually a very interesting idea! I wonder how that would look? What would these panels look like and how would they fix to the screen? Would having 2 layers of A/T fabric in front of the speakers be an issue?
Click to expand...


----------



## Blackdevil77

thrillcat said:


> They’re explained on the website.
> 
> http://www.seymourav.com/masking.php


That is interesting but it does look like there is still a physical hard piece for the border on the mask, which would also end up right in front of the L/R speaker. I have to play with sizes on AutoCAD and see what size masking panel would give me the screen size I want and not interfere with the L/R speakers.

Chris Seymour is active on here, right? I'm sure he's dealt with issues like this before. I'm curious what kind of solutions he came up with in the past for this.


----------



## thrillcat

Blackdevil77 said:


> That is interesting but it does look like there is still a physical hard piece for the border on the mask, which would also end up right in front of the L/R speaker. I have to play with sizes on AutoCAD and see what size masking panel would give me the screen size I want and not interfere with the L/R speakers.


Yes, the masking panels do require a frame to hold their size and shape, and to mount the magnets.


----------



## Blackdevil77

thrillcat said:


> Yes, the masking panels do require a frame to hold their size and shape, and to mount the magnets.


So the mask might have to be a bit wider to go past the L/R speakers instead of stopping right in front of them. I'd need them on the top and bottom as well.


----------



## thrillcat

Blackdevil77 said:


> So the mask might have to be a bit wider to go past the L/R speakers instead of stopping right in front of them. I'd need them on the top and bottom as well.


If you call Seymour, they likely have the math memorized if you simply tell them your requirements. They might even pick the phone up after hours and on weekends.


----------



## Bittermidget

Blackdevil77 said:


> That's actually a very interesting idea! I wonder how that would look? What would these panels look like and how would they fix to the screen? Would having 2 layers of A/T fabric in front of the speakers be an issue?


It's a more expensive option than fixed frame, but you could go with a ceiling-mounted tensioned retractable electric screen and not have to deal with the issues of the vertical screen frame interfering with the L/R drivers. It would allow you to place your front speakers anywhere on the front stage without obstructing the driver baffles. You can even get the acoustically transparent motorized side masks and run a constant image height setup that would help alleviate the issue of people's heads interfering with the bottom of the image. 

You could still use a false wall with A/T fabric for when the screen is up (assuming ever even need to put it up). If you're OK with the screen down all the time, it's a non-issue.


----------



## Blackdevil77

thrillcat said:


> If you call Seymour, they likely have the math memorized if you simply tell them your requirements. They might even pick the phone up after hours and on weekends.


I sent them an e-mail, my question was sent to Chris. Just waiting for his response. 



Bittermidget said:


> It's a more expensive option than fixed frame, but you could go with a ceiling-mounted tensioned retractable electric screen and not have to deal with the issues of the vertical screen frame interfering with the L/R drivers. It would allow you to place your front speakers anywhere on the front stage without obstructing the driver baffles. You can even get the acoustically transparent motorized side masks and run a constant image height setup that would help alleviate the issue of people's heads interfering with the bottom of the image.
> 
> You could still use a false wall with A/T fabric for when the screen is up (assuming ever even need to put it up). If you're OK with the screen down all the time, it's a non-issue.


So the borders on those retractable screens are completely acoustically transparent? I thought they would of been a more substantial material than the acoustically transparent screen material. That would certainly solve everything if that's the case.


----------



## Bittermidget

Blackdevil77 said:


> So the borders on those retractable screens are completely acoustically transparent? I thought they would of been a more substantial material than the acoustically transparent screen material. That would certainly solve everything if that's the case.


The retractable can use the millibel AT fabric for masking which is essentially as acoustically transparent as a speaker grille. It's not solid like the velvet or quite as dark, but it certainly gives you enough of a border to make it worthwhile...while imparting a VERY minor impact on acoustics.

Give the Seymour site a thorough read. A lot of information on acoustic properties of the different screens and masking materials. Maybe start here. http://www.seymourav.com/masking.php


----------



## jaz50y

Looking for advice on XD vs. UF. I just got a BenQ TK850, and now want a the largest retractable screen I can manage to go with it. The setup is in my living room (tan walls, windows with blackout shades at each end), and restricted by it: 


Seating is at 13'.
The PJ is on the coffee table 9' from screen, and I am planning on the 105" 16:9 (up from my 92" 4:3). According to ProjectorCentral, this results in 54fL of image brightness.
I have good but not perfect control of light at night, and during the day only watch occasional sports (effect of ambient light doesn't really bother me then).

Seymour kindly sent me samples of the fabrics, but I really can't make a clear decision. The XD is somewhat brighter, but the UF seemed to have an advantage for contrast and color. I am leaning towards the UF as a result, due to the PJ's brightness. But my very non-rigorous testing also seemed to show some softening of the picture on the UF? Really only noticeable when I got right up to it, but no idea how it would all look at 105".

Advice, please


----------



## thrillcat

jaz50y said:


> Looking for advice on XD vs. UF. I just got a BenQ TK850, and now want a the largest retractable screen I can manage to go with it. The setup is in my living room (tan walls, windows with blackout shades at each end), and restricted by it:
> 
> 
> Seating is at 13'.
> The PJ is on the coffee table 9' from screen, and I am planning on the 105" 16:9 (up from my 92" 4:3). According to ProjectorCentral, this results in 54fL of image brightness.
> I have good but not perfect control of light at night, and during the day only watch occasional sports (effect of ambient light doesn't really bother me then).
> 
> Seymour kindly sent me samples of the fabrics, but I really can't make a clear decision. The XD is somewhat brighter, but the UF seemed to have an advantage for contrast and color. I am leaning towards the UF as a result, due to the PJ's brightness. But my very non-rigorous testing also seemed to show some softening of the picture on the UF? Really only noticeable when I got right up to it, but no idea how it would all look at 105".
> 
> Advice, please


I don't think they do retractable in UF, because it's too flexible. Problem solved.


----------



## Bittermidget

thrillcat said:


> I don't think they do retractable in UF, because it's too flexible. Problem solved.


I'm using a retractable Seymour screen in UF, so you do have that option available.


----------



## Bittermidget

jaz50y said:


> Looking for advice on XD vs. UF. I just got a BenQ TK850, and now want a the largest retractable screen I can manage to go with it. The setup is in my living room (tan walls, windows with blackout shades at each end), and restricted by it:
> 
> 
> Seating is at 13'.
> The PJ is on the coffee table 9' from screen, and I am planning on the 105" 16:9 (up from my 92" 4:3). According to ProjectorCentral, this results in 54fL of image brightness.
> I have good but not perfect control of light at night, and during the day only watch occasional sports (effect of ambient light doesn't really bother me then).
> 
> Seymour kindly sent me samples of the fabrics, but I really can't make a clear decision. The XD is somewhat brighter, but the UF seemed to have an advantage for contrast and color. I am leaning towards the UF as a result, due to the PJ's brightness. But my very non-rigorous testing also seemed to show some softening of the picture on the UF? Really only noticeable when I got right up to it, but no idea how it would all look at 105".
> 
> Advice, please


I use a retractable UF screen in a full light controlled room with matte black ceiling. The benefits of UF are really realized in a fully light controlled room because it is a great screen for improving contrast and has a less visible texture than XD if you sit close. With ambient light present and light colored walls for reflections, much of that benefit goes away and you just get less gain from the UF vs. the XD. I have not used the XD in my setup, so I can't compare them first hand, but I think Chris likes to recommend UF as much as possible for people using smaller screens, people who sit close, and for anyone with a projector with plenty of light output.

Light control in the room from direct and reflected light is really more important than the choice between these two screen materials.


----------



## jaz50y

Bittermidget said:


> I use a retractable UF screen in a full light controlled room with matte black ceiling. The benefits of UF are really realized in a fully light controlled room because it is a great screen for improving contrast and has a less visible texture than XD if you sit close. With ambient light present and light colored walls for reflections, much of that benefit goes away and you just get less gain from the UF vs. the XD. I have not used the XD in my setup, so I can't compare them first hand, but I think Chris likes to recommend UF as much as possible for people using smaller screens, people who sit close, and for anyone with a projector with plenty of light output.
> 
> Light control in the room from direct and reflected light is really more important than the choice between these two screen materials.



Thanks. I think the light control in the room is adequate at night, especially given the 3000 lumen output of the TK850. Even on my old Draper the picture is striking (relative to my old PJ). I guess one question I have is whether the picture will actually seem more washed out on the brighter material (XD)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscmore

Blackdevil77 said:


> I have a question/problem that I'm sure plenty of people have faced before. My issue is, I want an A/T screen (center stage XD) and the ideal size for my room and personal preference would be 11 feet wide. The only issue with this would be placing the large speakers and subs I have behind it. I attached 2 diagrams showing the speakers and sub positioning. The diagram with the speakers in the corners of the room, places the L/R too close together. The diagram with the L/R on the sides, puts the subs closer towards the center of the room, past the 1/4 distance of the front wall mark. 1/4 distance is a little over 3.5 feet, and in that diagram, they would have to be about 4'7" from the side walls. Not sure if that would be a problem or not.
> 
> The optimal placement for the speakers and subs would put the border of the screen right in the center of the L/R speakers. Unfortunately with an 11' wide screen, I don't have enough room on the sides of the screen to place the speakers, unless I shrink the screen size to a little under 10 feet. Which I'm trying to find a way around. I can't get a bigger screen because the heads of those in the front row would cast a shadow on the bottom of the image.
> 
> It SEEMS like the ideal solution that would give me the picture size I want AND be able to place the speakers where they need to be would be to get a huge screen, and just not fill the entire screen with the image. Is there a way to make that not look strange and horrible?
> 
> Here are the two diagrams. These are both with an 11 foot wide 2.35:1 screen.


Acoustically, I like the subs between the L/R much better. It's tricky getting enough spread to the L/R speakers while staying behind the screen, or in your case dodging subs. I like a wide L/R spread, approaching the audiophile 60 degree when possible. Otherwise, if the L/R is more narrow - as is often the case being behind screens - so a 40-45 degree wide can be greatly helped if you're running wide channels. These off-screen wides have been called by SOWK, the "least used speakers in the room" and Dolby tried to not allow much decoding to those, but that trend is changing.

Keep in mind every screen is custom made, so literally tell us any custom dimension and we'll scale everything accordingly.

If you wanted masking panels that didn't have a metal (1.2"w) interior edge we can experiment with a couple alternatives, none of which would include a velvet interior edge strip since it's not AT either. One is we could make a 3-sided masking panel and sub out the normal Millibel AT mesh with premium speaker grill material. I think we could get that edge pretty straight, but there could be a little hour-glassing to the material tensioned top and bottom.

Another is we could make side masks more like our retractable, where it's essentially just a hanging strip of Millibel AT. This would have the top and bottom magnetic bars. What could be nice about this approach is they could roll up for storage.

The massive advantage of a quality AT screen is that you can do best audio AND best video practice, independent of each other. I think this issue of a masking bar line is solvable, and is it still an issue in the wider L/R configuration drawn?

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Blackdevil77

chriscmore said:


> Acoustically, I like the subs between the L/R much better. It's tricky getting enough spread to the L/R speakers while staying behind the screen, or in your case dodging subs. I like a wide L/R spread, approaching the audiophile 60 degree when possible. Otherwise, if the L/R is more narrow - as is often the case being behind screens - so a 40-45 degree wide can be greatly helped if you're running wide channels. These off-screen wides have been called by SOWK, the "least used speakers in the room" and Dolby tried to not allow much decoding to those, but that trend is changing.
> 
> Keep in mind every screen is custom made, so literally tell us any custom dimension and we'll scale everything accordingly.
> 
> If you wanted masking panels that didn't have a metal (1.2"w) interior edge we can experiment with a couple alternatives, none of which would include a velvet interior edge strip since it's not AT either. One is we could make a 3-sided masking panel and sub out the normal Millibel AT mesh with premium speaker grill material. I think we could get that edge pretty straight, but there could be a little hour-glassing to the material tensioned top and bottom.
> 
> Another is we could make side masks more like our retractable, where it's essentially just a hanging strip of Millibel AT. This would have the top and bottom magnetic bars. What could be nice about this approach is they could roll up for storage.
> 
> The massive advantage of a quality AT screen is that you can do best audio AND best video practice, independent of each other. I think this issue of a masking bar line is solvable, and is it still an issue in the wider L/R configuration drawn?
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


With your 130" wide 2.35:1 screen, that would put the L/R speakers 9.2 feet apart from each other (center to center), and the angle at about 45 degrees, which isn't bad. 60 degrees isn't achievable at the MLP, even if the speakers are pressed against the side walls. That would put them around 50/51 degrees according to CAD. I don't know much but it seems like the difference there is negligible. The issue is with the L/R speakers placed at that distance from each other, which is the maximum distance allowable behind an 130" wide screen, people are telling me that places the subs too close together. It puts them about an extra foot in from the side walls from the 1/4 distance mark, and puts them 4.7 feet away from each other (center to center).

If that's not a problem, then then the 11 foot screen would be perfect. If it is, then a wider screen (acoustically) would definitely be the best solution, as it wouldn't decrease image size, but would solve the speaker/sub placement issue. I can't have an image height greater than 55.3" (the height of your 130" wide 2.35:1 screen) because the light path won't clear the heads of those in the front row, unless they're shorter than me. But acoustically transparent masking panels to give the appearance of a 130" wide 2.35:1 screen while the acoustically transparent surface is actually larger, would be a massive help with the speaker placement issue. 

Whats your opinion on the sub placement? Do you think they are too close together at 4.7 feet apart? The subs are huge, (48" tall, 30" wide, 24" deep).


----------



## chriscmore

Blackdevil77 said:


> With your 130" wide 2.35:1 screen, that would put the L/R speakers 9.2 feet apart from each other (center to center), and the angle at about 45 degrees, which isn't bad. 60 degrees isn't achievable at the MLP, even if the speakers are pressed against the side walls. That would put them around 50/51 degrees according to CAD. I don't know much but it seems like the difference there is negligible. The issue is with the L/R speakers placed at that distance from each other, which is the maximum distance allowable behind an 130" wide screen, people are telling me that places the subs too close together. It puts them about an extra foot in from the side walls from the 1/4 distance mark, and puts them 4.7 feet away from each other (center to center).
> 
> If that's not a problem, then then the 11 foot screen would be perfect. If it is, then a wider screen (acoustically) would definitely be the best solution, as it wouldn't decrease image size, but would solve the speaker/sub placement issue. I can't have an image height greater than 55.3" (the height of your 130" wide 2.35:1 screen) because the light path won't clear the heads of those in the front row, unless they're shorter than me. But acoustically transparent masking panels to give the appearance of a 130" wide 2.35:1 screen while the acoustically transparent surface is actually larger, would be a massive help with the speaker placement issue.
> 
> Whats your opinion on the sub placement? Do you think they are too close together at 4.7 feet apart? The subs are huge, (48" tall, 30" wide, 24" deep).


You're right that the few extra degrees doesn't make much difference. It's just directionally encouraged. Don't worry about subs being too close together. There's no problem with that. In fact there are advantages as they'll begin to couple and offer increased efficiency. Youthman on YouTube has a great setup like that and his recent tour of SOWK's theater shows that configuration. It's quite common.

Anyway, it still seems like the interior edge of a side masking panel's acoustical transparency won't be an issue, but we can certainly play with the couple options if you'd like. It wouldn't hurt to put magnets in the frame even if you're not wanting to play with masking options in the beginning. The refundable cost is not a big deal.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Blackdevil77

chriscmore said:


> You're right that the few extra degrees doesn't make much difference. It's just directionally encouraged. Don't worry about subs being too close together. There's no problem with that. In fact there are advantages as they'll begin to couple and offer increased efficiency. Youthman on YouTube has a great setup like that and his recent tour of SOWK's theater shows that configuration. It's quite common.
> 
> Anyway, it still seems like the interior edge of a side masking panel's acoustical transparency won't be an issue, but we can certainly play with the couple options if you'd like. It wouldn't hurt to put magnets in the frame even if you're not wanting to play with masking options in the beginning. The refundable cost is not a big deal.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


If the few extra degrees don't make much of a difference and the subs proximity to each other isn't a problem, then an 11 foot wide screen would be perfect. I think an 11 foot wide 2.39:1 screen would be perfect for the room (7 foot ceilings). As far as the masking panels, what does that normally add to the cost? You can PM me if you'd like. Just on the sides to transform the 2.39:1 screen to a 16:9 ratio.


----------



## skylarlove1999

Blackdevil77 said:


> If the few extra degrees don't make much of a difference and the subs proximity to each other isn't a problem, then an 11 foot wide screen would be perfect. I think an 11 foot wide 2.39:1 screen would be perfect for the room (7 foot ceilings). As far as the masking panels, what does that normally add to the cost? You can PM me if you'd like. Just on the sides to transform the 2.39:1 screen to a 16:9 ratio.


About $350 to $400 . Well worth the investment IMHO. I do the opposite masking on my 120 inch 16x9 Seymour Glacier white screen. The panels really provide better perceived contrast. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blackdevil77

skylarlove1999 said:


> Blackdevil77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the few extra degrees don't make much of a difference and the subs proximity to each other isn't a problem, then an 11 foot wide screen would be perfect. I think an 11 foot wide 2.39:1 screen would be perfect for the room (7 foot ceilings). As far as the masking panels, what does that normally add to the cost? You can PM me if you'd like. Just on the sides to transform the 2.39:1 screen to a 16:9 ratio.
> 
> 
> 
> About $350 to $400 . Well worth the investment IMHO. I do the opposite masking on my 120 inch 16x9 Seymour Glacier white screen. The panels really provide better perceived contrast.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s not bad. I’m assuming that’s for the magnet panels, not the motorized panels?


----------



## skylarlove1999

Blackdevil77 said:


> Yeah that’s not bad. I’m assuming that’s for the magnet panels, not the motorized panels?


Yes magnets LOL the motorized masking from Seymour is the most affordable in the industry but significantly more expensive than the manual masking. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blackdevil77

skylarlove1999 said:


> Blackdevil77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thatâ€™️s not bad. Iâ€™️m assuming thatâ€™️s for the magnet panels, not the motorized panels?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes magnets LOL the motorized masking from Seymour is the most affordable in the industry but significantly more expensive than the manual masking.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Significantly more, I’m assuming that means it’s in the thousands lol. Magnets will do


----------



## skylarlove1999

Blackdevil77 said:


> Significantly more, I’m assuming that means it’s in the thousands lol. Magnets will do


Yes . You would be correct. If you look under Store on the Seymour website they do have demo screens for 50% to 70% off original MSRP. Obviously it is a challenge to find the size and material you are looking for, but if you are lucky enough to find a match the savings are extraordinary. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blackdevil77

skylarlove1999 said:


> Blackdevil77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Significantly more, Iâ€™️m assuming that means itâ€™️s in the thousands lol. Magnets will do
> 
> 
> 
> Yes . You would be correct. If you look under Store on the Seymour website they do have demo screens for 50% to 70% off original MSRP. Obviously it is a challenge to find the size and material you are looking for, but if you are lucky enough to find a match the savings are extraordinary.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Just checked. The only screens they have in the aspect ratio I’m looking for are curved screens


----------



## jaz50y

*Retractable Drop Control?*

The Seymour website says that drop on the retractable screens is "programmed at the factory". Does that mean there is no adjustment feature to fine-tune the final drop after the screen is in place?


----------



## monstosity12

I have a Seymour av 1.3 screen. 

Question regarding center of lens. I know it’s best to have center of lens at the top of the Viewing area of the screen. However, the projector can only be mounted with the center of the lens 3” inches lower from top of the viewing area of the screen. 

Question. Is this going to be a big deal/issue? If it is I will have to figure something out

Thanks.


----------



## chriscmore

jaz50y said:


> The Seymour website says that drop on the retractable screens is "programmed at the factory". Does that mean there is no adjustment feature to fine-tune the final drop after the screen is in place?


Sorry I missed answering your question. The motor does have adjustable limits that are accessible for you. Ideally, we'll build it exactly as you'd like it. Otherwise, if you tell us short (we build 6", you need 12"), you'll run out of material. We'll make it with about 4" more cable, tops. If you tell us long (we build 12", you need 6"), then we don't get to make sure everything is dialed in perfectly. You can adjust the tension cables too.

As every screen is custom made, feel free to specify whatever you want to the 0.1" resolution.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

monstosity12 said:


> I have a Seymour av 1.3 screen.
> 
> Question regarding center of lens. I know it’s best to have center of lens at the top of the Viewing area of the screen. However, the projector can only be mounted with the center of the lens 3” inches lower from top of the viewing area of the screen.
> 
> Question. Is this going to be a big deal/issue? If it is I will have to figure something out
> 
> Thanks.


It won't be a big deal. At CES we were showing it with a tabletop mounted Wolf projector, even shorter throw than we recommend. Of course, the longer your throw is the less it's an issue, too, since uniformity improves.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## BIC2

monstosity12 said:


> I have a Seymour av 1.3 screen.
> 
> Question regarding center of lens. I know it’s best to have center of lens at the top of the Viewing area of the screen. However, the projector can only be mounted with the center of the lens 3” inches lower from top of the viewing area of the screen.
> 
> Question. Is this going to be a big deal/issue? If it is I will have to figure something out
> 
> Thanks.





chriscmore said:


> It won't be a big deal. At CES we were showing it with a tabletop mounted Wolf projector, even shorter throw than we recommend. Of course, the longer your throw is the less it's an issue, too, since uniformity improves.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


If one has the choice, i.e., I have the Chief adjustable extension on my mount, what is best? I thought having projector centered on screen is ideal if an available option, which I have. I have it slightly higher than center for headroom & fan noise, but could bring it down to dead center. Epson 6050 throw is 16+ ft. Center Stage XD is 130" wide; 73" high; 16:9.


----------



## chriscmore

BIC2 said:


> If one has the choice, i.e., I have the Chief adjustable extension on my mount, what is best? I thought having projector centered on screen is ideal if an available option, which I have. I have it slightly higher than center for headroom & fan noise, but could bring it down to dead center. Epson 6050 throw is 16+ ft. Center Stage XD is 130" wide; 73" high; 16:9.


No, most projectors are designed for their geometry to be correct when placed about the frame height (upper if ceiling mounted, lower if table mounted). The XD is a Lambertian surface, so the angle of projection to the viewer won't matter like it would with angular reflective screens.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## craig john

Hi all,

I am in the process of installing a 115" 2.35:1 screen with motorized masking. I received 2 remotes, 1 for the screen and another for the masking. Is anyone aware of a universal remote that can be programmed to accommodate both the screen and the masking functions? I need a new universal remote anyway, so ensuring I have this functionality is important. Thanks!

Craig


----------



## Bittermidget

craig john said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I am in the process of installing a 115" 2.35:1 screen with motorized masking. I received 2 remotes, 1 for the screen and another for the masking. Is anyone aware of a universal remote that can be programmed to accommodate both the screen and the masking functions? I need a new universal remote anyway, so ensuring I have this functionality is important. Thanks!
> 
> Craig


I'm pretty sure those remotes are RF, not infrared...at least the ones I have from Seymour use RF. My Logitech and hub cannot control the screen or masks. I would ask Seymour AV for a recommendation as I'm sure this question has come up with custom installers.


----------



## craig john

Bittermidget said:


> I'm pretty sure those remotes are RF, not infrared...at least the ones I have from Seymour use RF. My Logitech and hub cannot control the screen or masks. I would ask Seymour AV for a recommendation as I'm sure this question has come up with custom installers.


Hmmm... OK. Thanks!

Maybe @chriscmore will see this and pop in!


----------



## craig john

I have installed my new Seymour AV screen. I've uploaded a bunch of pics to the "My System" post in my signature. Here's a direct link: 
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-w...395-craig-john-s-theater-17.html#post59700360

I'm very happy with the new screen! 

Craig


----------



## skylarlove1999

craig john said:


> I have installed my new Seymour AV screen. I've uploaded a bunch of pics to the "My System" post in my signature. Here's a direct link:
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-w...395-craig-john-s-theater-17.html#post59700360
> 
> I'm very happy with the new screen!
> 
> Craig


That is one sweet screen. Love the masking. Nice home theater. Thanks for sharing.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## surroundsound99

Does anyone have problems with wrinkles or creases on the UF for a drop-down electric screen? I received a sample and it seems very prone to damage. The XD seems more tough. If I was using a fixed frame I wouldn't worry so much.


----------



## chriscmore

craig john said:


> I have installed my new Seymour AV screen. I've uploaded a bunch of pics to the "My System" post in my signature. Here's a direct link:
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-w...395-craig-john-s-theater-17.html#post59700360
> 
> I'm very happy with the new screen!
> 
> Craig


Hi Craig - 

I'm so glad that your installation went well and you're able to experience the many upgrades we've incorporated into our design since your earlier screen. 

The RF remotes are uniquely tied to the motors. You can replace them if a dog munches one, but I don't know of a way to tie them into universal remotes or automation. Even though universals use RF, they're just using them as a carrier and not able to actually learn other RF remotes.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> Does anyone have problems with wrinkles or creases on the UF for a drop-down electric screen? I received a sample and it seems very prone to damage. The XD seems more tough. If I was using a fixed frame I wouldn't worry so much.


It may seem non-intuitive, but the UF actually resists mechanical stresses in the retractable better than the XD. In the fixed frame screens, the UF can actually be washed in a washing machine and rehung. I've even washed a retractable once as an experiment and it came out almost perfect. (The velvet trim was less happy)

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## craig john

surroundsound99 said:


> Does anyone have problems with wrinkles or creases on the UF for a drop-down electric screen? I received a sample and it seems very prone to damage. The XD seems more tough. If I was using a fixed frame I wouldn't worry so much.


My new UF drop down screen has ZERO wrinkles or waves! The tab-tensioning is much improved over my old screen. I also recently helped another forum member install an XD fixed frame screen. That too is smooth and wrinkle free. His screen is much bigger than mine, (115" vs 155", both 2.35:1.) but he sits further away than I do.


----------



## craig john

chriscmore said:


> Hi Craig -
> 
> I'm so glad that your installation went well and you're able to experience the many upgrades we've incorporated into our design since your earlier screen.
> 
> The RF remotes are uniquely tied to the motors. You can replace them if a dog munches one, but I don't know of a way to tie them into universal remotes or automation. Even though universals use RF, they're just using them as a carrier and not able to actually learn other RF remotes.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hmm... OK.


----------



## surroundsound99

craig john said:


> My new UF drop down screen has ZERO wrinkles or waves! The tab-tensioning is much improved over my old screen. I also recently helped another forum member install an XD fixed frame screen. That too is smooth and wrinkle free. His screen is much bigger than mine, (115" vs 155", both 2.35:1.) but he sits further away than I do.


Thank you for the feedback! That's good to hear.


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> It may seem non-intuitive, but the UF actually resists mechanical stresses in the retractable better than the XD. In the fixed frame screens, the UF can actually be washed in a washing machine and rehung. I've even washed a retractable once as an experiment and it came out almost perfect. (The velvet trim was less happy)
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks for the reply Chris!


----------



## StevenC56

chriscmore said:


> Hi Craig -
> 
> I'm so glad that your installation went well and you're able to experience the many upgrades we've incorporated into our design since your earlier screen.
> 
> The RF remotes are uniquely tied to the motors. You can replace them if a dog munches one, but I don't know of a way to tie them into universal remotes or automation. Even though universals use RF, they're just using them as a carrier and not able to actually learn other RF remotes.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hey Chris! I had recently found an alternative control path and shared in with Jon. He was going to copy you. 

I installed a new ceiling fan in our HT which uses an RF remote for fan and light functionality. I also purchased a Bond Hub to make the commands work through my phone and Google Home. I thought maybe this would work with the projector screen motor. The Bond Hub can control motorized blinds and copies RF remote codes, so I thought just maybe. I programmed it using the RF remote that you supplied with my screen back in the day, and it works great! The only thing that's a bit weird is the commands are open, stop, and close instead of lower, stop, and raise. I sent an email to Bond support asking if there's a way to edit the command verbiage, but at this time there isn't. The Bond hub also works with Amazon Alexa. No support from Harmony yet for the Bond Hub unfortunately. It would be great if they did so you could add the screen controls to Harmony Activities. 



craig john said:


> Hmm... OK.


----------



## fight4yu

HI Chris,

I bought the retractable 2.35 screen from you guys way back in 2012. It is going strong and one of our favorite family time event!
Recently, I am moving to a new house, and I want to bring the screen with me. My new house had higher ceiling, so I want to get to a lower drop.
I don't seem to recall how to get the stop limit to work again. I have a old remote (AC114), and there is no LED indicator on my screen. I LONG press UP and DOWN, and also try STOP and DOWN, but it doesn't seem to work. Can you let me know how I can do it? 
Since it is so way back, I forget how much drop I have asked before... 
Thanks and appreciate your feedback in advance!

Thomas


----------



## chriscmore

fight4yu said:


> HI Chris,
> 
> I bought the retractable 2.35 screen from you guys way back in 2012. It is going strong and one of our favorite family time event!
> Recently, I am moving to a new house, and I want to bring the screen with me. My new house had higher ceiling, so I want to get to a lower drop.
> I don't seem to recall how to get the stop limit to work again. I have a old remote (AC114), and there is no LED indicator on my screen. I LONG press UP and DOWN, and also try STOP and DOWN, but it doesn't seem to work. Can you let me know how I can do it?
> Since it is so way back, I forget how much drop I have asked before...
> Thanks and appreciate your feedback in advance!
> 
> Thomas


Hi Thomas -

I would first look up at the motor's head and see if there are hex-shaped motor limit adjustment pots or not. If there are, then you have mechanical limits and it's easier to change. The next thing I would look at is in the down position, can you see how much extra cable you have. Back then we likely didn't add much cable wrap to the roller, so you may not be able to extend it much further, if any.

After you investigate that, ping us on email and we can discuss further.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

Has the Enlightor 4K been discontinued? Is the Neo the replacement for the 4K?


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> Has the Enlightor 4K been discontinued? Is the Neo the replacement for the 4K?


Yes and yes.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> Yes and yes.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris


----------



## scubasteve2365

Hi All,

I'm in the planning stages of my next room. I've always wanted an AT screen with matched LCR behind it. After many years in this hobby it never occurred to me the downsides of AT screens (low gain, texture patterns) and based on many opinions I think the XD is probably going to be the best balance for me. I'll be aiming to use an Epson 5050 for the time being with my eye on future native 4k projectors that hopefully incorporate HDMI 2.1 Variable Refresh Rate (I play a lot of games in my theater). Anyway, it seems the Centerstage XD might be my target. I will be planning a false wall. Is there any advantage really in getting a fixed frame screen over the DIY material since I'm going to be framing and stapling fabrics anyway? (for the false wall panels). Also, I don't understand the black backing. While I'm not too concerned with illuminating behind the screen for those cool photo ops, which I assume the black backing would prevent, what is the benefit and what is the compromise of the black backing in terms of performance? Lower gain? Improved reflections for clarity?

When ordering the DIY material from Seymour directly, does the black backing come separate (if choosing the backing) so that I can decide whether or not I want it?


----------



## BIC2

scubasteve2365 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I'm in the planning stages of my next room. I've always wanted an AT screen with matched LCR behind it. After many years in this hobby it never occurred to me the downsides of AT screens (low gain, texture patterns) and based on many opinions I think the XD is probably going to be the best balance for me. I'll be aiming to use an Epson 5050 for the time being with my eye on future native 4k projectors that hopefully incorporate HDMI 2.1 Variable Refresh Rate (I play a lot of games in my theater). Anyway, it seems the Centerstage XD might be my target. I will be planning a false wall. Is there any advantage really in getting a fixed frame screen over the DIY material since I'm going to be framing and stapling fabrics anyway? (for the false wall panels). Also, I don't understand the black backing. While I'm not too concerned with illuminating behind the screen for those cool photo ops, which I assume the black backing would prevent, what is the benefit and what is the compromise of the black backing in terms of performance? Lower gain? Improved reflections for clarity?
> 
> When ordering the DIY material from Seymour directly, does the black backing come separate (if choosing the backing) so that I can decide whether or not I want it?


I have Epson 6050 paired with XD with factory frame. You could save some money DIY, but the factory frame is pretty slick. Certainly a personal preference, but I think it's worth the extra money if having everything look first-class is important to you. The gain is fine if using 5050/6050, texture pattern is noticeable in big, bright white scenes, but only if you're looking for it. It doesn't bother me.

The black backing supposedly prevents light reflecting back at you from the wall behind screen. I don't have black backing so can't say it's value. I don't think you lose anything--potentially a win-win. I probably should put some in there one of these days. The black backing is separate for ordering.


----------



## McLuvin

McLuvin said:


> Hello fellow Seymour owners. I have a question for those of you that have the Neo material with a retractable motor. I am coming from a fixed frame XD screen, and wanted to upgrade to a motorized setup with the Neo material as I could see the weave in the XD material. I just installed the new motorized screen with the Neo, and I am seeing some odd vertical lines in the material. They look kinda like creases in the materiel when viewed up close. I reached out to Seymour and Chris is trying to tell me it's normal, but I am having a hard time believing that. Any others out there with this setup confirm if it is normal or not? I just spent A LOT of money and time on this and a little discouraged at this point. Any input is appreciated.





Just wanted to follow back up on this and let everyone know that Seymour took care of me. It took awhile, and some back and forth, but in the end they made it right. A big thanks to Chris, Jon, and Dan over there.


----------



## thrillcat

scubasteve2365 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I'm in the planning stages of my next room. I've always wanted an AT screen with matched LCR behind it. After many years in this hobby it never occurred to me the downsides of AT screens (low gain, texture patterns) and based on many opinions I think the XD is probably going to be the best balance for me. I'll be aiming to use an Epson 5050 for the time being with my eye on future native 4k projectors that hopefully incorporate HDMI 2.1 Variable Refresh Rate (I play a lot of games in my theater). Anyway, it seems the Centerstage XD might be my target. I will be planning a false wall. Is there any advantage really in getting a fixed frame screen over the DIY material since I'm going to be framing and stapling fabrics anyway? (for the false wall panels). Also, I don't understand the black backing. While I'm not too concerned with illuminating behind the screen for those cool photo ops, which I assume the black backing would prevent, what is the benefit and what is the compromise of the black backing in terms of performance? Lower gain? Improved reflections for clarity?
> 
> When ordering the DIY material from Seymour directly, does the black backing come separate (if choosing the backing) so that I can decide whether or not I want it?


The black backing must be requested, it's a minimal charge.

I first went without it, but the black horns on my speakers (which had no grills) would reflect whites back through the screen - most noticeable on credit rolls. You could see the reflections of the white text in the black background. I added the black backing and it took care of that problem.

It's also said to increase your contrast slightly, though I'm not going to claim to have visibly noticed a difference. It likely does help, though.

I think if your back wall is black and your speakers have grills and non-glossy cabinets, you should be fine without the black backing. However, if you have a non-black wall, no grills on your speakers, or glossy speaker cabinets, you'll want the black backing.


----------



## chriscmore

scubasteve2365 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I'm in the planning stages of my next room. I've always wanted an AT screen with matched LCR behind it. After many years in this hobby it never occurred to me the downsides of AT screens (low gain, texture patterns) and based on many opinions I think the XD is probably going to be the best balance for me. I'll be aiming to use an Epson 5050 for the time being with my eye on future native 4k projectors that hopefully incorporate HDMI 2.1 Variable Refresh Rate (I play a lot of games in my theater). Anyway, it seems the Centerstage XD might be my target. I will be planning a false wall. Is there any advantage really in getting a fixed frame screen over the DIY material since I'm going to be framing and stapling fabrics anyway? (for the false wall panels). Also, I don't understand the black backing. While I'm not too concerned with illuminating behind the screen for those cool photo ops, which I assume the black backing would prevent, what is the benefit and what is the compromise of the black backing in terms of performance? Lower gain? Improved reflections for clarity?
> 
> When ordering the DIY material from Seymour directly, does the black backing come separate (if choosing the backing) so that I can decide whether or not I want it?


Hi Steve -

Texture issues are typically a matter of seating distance from the screen. I like to have the Center Stage XD folks about 10-11' minimum seating distance. The Center Stage UF is designed for up to 6' seating distance.

If you do want to do the "IMAX reveal" trick, the XD is the material to do that. Neither typically need black backing and it can be added later if you like. As long as you have highly light-absorbent surfaces like dark foam and fabrics, you'll be fine. The way to test is to put any black fabric behind part of the screen and see if you can tell any difference in the background when rolling white credits on black.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

Mike Johnson 3 said:


> For the past few weeks I have been a proud owner of a 115" wide (125" diagonal) 2.40:1 XD screen with masking panels.
> JVC NX7, Paladin DCR lens, throw distance of 16.5', dark fabric front wall, aged wood for sidewalls+ceiling.
> 
> I was one of those who used to ponder which acoustically transparent screen to get, or if the weave of the XD is more visible than the UF. I decided to just go for the XD as I wanted good peak brightness for HDR content and wasn't willing the take the hit of the lower gain UF material.
> 
> Regarding the weave visibility, for me it's noticeable especially at a few feet from the screen and gradually fades away nicely by my 10.5' viewing distance. If I wanted to obsess and look for it, I could focus on it and notice it at 20 feet away. Does it bother me? No, not at all. When I'm watching content it has never distracted me nor has it been mentioned by a single person who has visited my home theater in the past few weeks. (I believe it's a learned issue, less so an experienced one.)
> 
> Regarding the picture quality, best HDR and 3D I've ever seen in my life!
> 
> I've owned approximately 5 screens over the past decade and have a stack of samples from various manufacturers. At this point in time I feel this is THE best option for a balance of brightness, contrast, sharpness, acoustic transparency and $$$$. The other weave samples I used were far from color accurate and dim with lower contrast. I was really amazed with how deep the blacks are and how bright the brights are with such a good sounding screen. I'm VERY relieved I didn't go with the dimmer spandex or the microperf.
> 
> Thank you SeymourAV for the beautiful new screen! My home theater is FINALLY complete!
> (My wife finally believes me when I say "it's complete!" because it just looks and sounds that amazing!)
> 
> ps. Jenna was very helpful and knowledgeable as was Dan whom I spoke with when I decided to increase my screen size. Seymour truly creates great screens. As a business owner myself, I hope to see more American businesses continue to make great products on our home turf for all the years ahead!


Mike, now that some more time has elapsed, are you still happy with the XD as your choice of screen material? I am currently conflicted between the XD, UF, Neo, or Enlightor Bright. So I am curious how you feel now that you have more hours on your XD. Co-incidentally I am sitting 10.5 feet away too and I'm also considering 115" wide as well. Thanks!


----------



## tk123

Hello. I have to admit up front, that I haven't read this whole thread. So, if I ask something that has already been discussed, I apologize.

During PMs with another member here, I mentioned my idea of using a DIY spandex screen. He advised me to check into the DIY Seymour offerings. So- I did.

Either the XD or UF would work for me . I would prefer to go with the UF, mainly due to cost. I'm just wondering if anyone has done a comparison of these 2 screen materials versus white over black spandex that is talked about so much in the DIY Screens section.

Any comparisons or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## surroundsound99

Hello Chris (or anyone,)

I received a quote for an SSE Neo screen that is over 2 times the amount of a quote for a SeymourAV UF. The stats are the same for both quotes -- retractable, 120" wide, AT, IR remote, etc.

What would I be getting with a SSE/Neo for twice the price that I would not be getting with a SeymourAV/UF?

Jon gave me his valuable thoughts and I was just curious about yours (or anyone else's.)

Thank you ahead of time!


----------



## Brandon Jolley

I am wondering what the recommendations would be for a screen? The screen area I am looking at is 10'-9 5/8" by 4'8" and looking at about 130-140". My first row will be about 10' 2" from the screen and ceiling height is only 7. I am looking at using a JVC NX5 for the projector. 
The room is in a basement with no windows so it will be completely dark. It does need to be a AT screen, fixed frame, wall mounted also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mike Johnson 3

surroundsound99 said:


> Mike, now that some more time has elapsed, are you still happy with the XD as your choice of screen material? I am currently conflicted between the XD, UF, Neo, or Enlightor Bright. So I am curious how you feel now that you have more hours on your XD. Co-incidentally I am sitting 10.5 feet away too and I'm also considering 115" wide as well. Thanks!


I've had plenty of time with the screen with XD but recently custom ordered UF for my frame since that's the only way to really judge between the 2 materials.

To sum up the differences it's very simple. 
XD: brighter but can see the weave from my front row seats during bright scenes.
UF: not as bright but better black levels/contrast. No patterns visible from any distance. 

Verdict: since the UF is currently on my screen I'm going to keep that until I feel like my image is too dull. Since I have a DCR anamorphic lens and a few spare bulbs that probably won't be any time soon. 
So I'd recommend XD from 12 or more feet away and UF if closer. Additionally, in a room that isn't a bat cave the UF might just help with black levels if that's your priority over extra bright highlights (my room is untreated wood walls with fabric front wall and black carpet).

Hope that helps.


----------



## tk123

Brandon Jolley said:


> I am wondering what the recommendations would be for a screen? The screen area I am looking at is 10'-9 5/8" by 4'8" and looking at about 130-140". My first row will be about 10' 2" from the screen and ceiling height is only 7. I am looking at using a JVC NX5 for the projector.
> The room is in a basement with no windows so it will be completely dark. It does need to be a AT screen, fixed frame, wall mounted also.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





tk123 said:


> Hello. I have to admit up front, that I haven't read this whole thread. So, if I ask something that has already been discussed, I apologize.
> 
> During PMs with another member here, I mentioned my idea of using a DIY spandex screen. He advised me to check into the DIY Seymour offerings. So- I did.
> 
> Either the XD or UF would work for me . I would prefer to go with the UF, mainly due to cost. I'm just wondering if anyone has done a comparison of these 2 screen materials versus white over black spandex that is talked about so much in the DIY Screens section.
> 
> Any comparisons or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.


My setup will seems like it will be almost identical to this one. Except, I'm still trying to figure out a projector to go with.

Nobody has any comparison thoughts about the XD, UF, and Spandex screen materials ???


----------



## thrillcat

tk123 said:


> Brandon Jolley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am wondering what the recommendations would be for a screen? The screen area I am looking at is 10'-9 5/8" by 4'8" and looking at about 130-140". My first row will be about 10' 2" from the screen and ceiling height is only 7. I am looking at using a JVC NX5 for the projector.
> The room is in a basement with no windows so it will be completely dark. It does need to be a AT screen, fixed frame, wall mounted also.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tk123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello. I have to admit up front, that I haven't read this whole thread. So, if I ask something that has already been discussed, I apologize.
> 
> During PMs with another member here, I mentioned my idea of using a DIY spandex screen. He advised me to check into the DIY Seymour offerings. So- I did.
> 
> Either the XD or UF would work for me . I would prefer to go with the UF, mainly due to cost. I'm just wondering if anyone has done a comparison of these 2 screen materials versus white over black spandex that is talked about so much in the DIY Screens section.
> 
> Any comparisons or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My setup will seems like it will be almost identical to this one. Except, I'm still trying to figure out a projector to go with.
> 
> Nobody has any comparison thoughts about the XD, UF, and Spandex screen materials ???
Click to expand...

I’ve used XD and UF, but wouldn’t waste my time with spandex. 

I loved the XD but a remodel moved my front row a bit closer and went with UF because I could see the weave of XD at 10 feet. 

Been very pleased with UF in a completely light controlled room.


----------



## tk123

thrillcat said:


> I’ve used XD and UF, but wouldn’t waste my time with spandex.
> 
> I loved the XD but a remodel moved my front row a bit closer and went with UF because I could see the weave of XD at 10 feet.
> 
> Been very pleased with UF in a completely light controlled room.


Thanks for the reply. 

Did you use the black backing material ? How is the acoustical transparency? Do you notice any audio veiling ?


----------



## thrillcat

tk123 said:


> thrillcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iâ€™️ve used XD and UF, but wouldnâ€™️t waste my time with spandex.
> 
> I loved the XD but a remodel moved my front row a bit closer and went with UF because I could see the weave of XD at 10 feet.
> 
> Been very pleased with UF in a completely light controlled room.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> Did you use the black backing material ? How is the acoustical transparency? Do you notice any audio veiling ?
Click to expand...

I initially put up the XD with no backing. In contrasty scenes I could see bright spots reflecting on the waveguides of my previous speakers. The wall was all Linacoustic, which worked great, but the shiny black waveguides on the horns would reflect. Adding the black backing, which is essentially speaker grill cloth, solved that problem and didn’t affect the sound.


----------



## rossandwendy

tk123 said:


> Hello. I have to admit up front, that I haven't read this whole thread. So, if I ask something that has already been discussed, I apologize.
> 
> During PMs with another member here, I mentioned my idea of using a DIY spandex screen. He advised me to check into the DIY Seymour offerings. So- I did.
> 
> Either the XD or UF would work for me . I would prefer to go with the UF, mainly due to cost. I'm just wondering if anyone has done a comparison of these 2 screen materials versus white over black spandex that is talked about so much in the DIY Screens section.
> 
> Any comparisons or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.


Spandex has a low gain, typically about 0.7, so the image will not be bright enough for UHD material unless running a smaller screen. The Seymour XD has an actual tested gain of .94 which is top notch for an AT weave material and will provide a noticeable and needed boost in brightness (it also has a beautiful color balance). XD looks great at 12' or greater viewing distances for most people, they won't see the weave. For closer than 12' the Seymour UF is recommended since it has a finer texture but you do lose the brightness of the XD - tested gain is .80, but still brighter than spandex. 

Ross


----------



## tk123

rossandwendy said:


> Spandex has a low gain, typically about 0.7, so the image will not be bright enough for UHD material unless running a smaller screen. The Seymour XD has an actual tested gain of .94 which is top notch for an AT weave material and will provide a noticeable and needed boost in brightness (it also has a beautiful color balance). XD looks great at 12' or greater viewing distances for most people, they won't see the weave. For closer than 12' the Seymour UF is recommended since it has a finer texture but you do lose the brightness of the XD - tested gain is .80, but still brighter than spandex.
> 
> Ross


Thanks for the info. I think the UF would work better for me due to my planned 10 ish foot seating distance. 
Now just need to decide on a projector, screen size and aspect ratio. Man, there's more to this than I first imagined.


----------



## tk123

@thrillcat
I sent you a PM


----------



## surroundsound99

Mike Johnson 3 said:


> I've had plenty of time with the screen with XD but recently custom ordered UF for my frame since that's the only way to really judge between the 2 materials.
> 
> To sum up the differences it's very simple.
> XD: brighter but can see the weave from my front row seats during bright scenes.
> UF: not as bright but better black levels/contrast. No patterns visible from any distance.
> 
> Verdict: since the UF is currently on my screen I'm going to keep that until I feel like my image is too dull. Since I have a DCR anamorphic lens and a few spare bulbs that probably won't be any time soon.
> So I'd recommend XD from 12 or more feet away and UF if closer. Additionally, in a room that isn't a bat cave the UF might just help with black levels if that's your priority over extra bright highlights (my room is untreated wood walls with fabric front wall and black carpet).
> 
> Hope that helps.


Yes this is very helpful Mike, thank you! I have a small screen sample of the XD and I have seen the weave even as far back as 12 feet away so I will probably be going with the UF or the Neo. Plus I might get a anamorphic lens later so thanks for the reminder about that avenue. Thanks again.


----------



## surroundsound99

What do you get with the Neo that you don't get with the UF?

What do you get with the Enlightor Bright that you don't get with the XD?


----------



## surroundsound99

Does anyone have a retractable screen with speakers in back, but the screen is NOT acoustically transparent?

In my setup there will be plenty of open air space to the left, right, and below the screen for the sound to wrap around, so do I really need the compromises that come with AT screen materials? Thanks


----------



## skylarlove1999

surroundsound99 said:


> Does anyone have a retractable screen with speakers in back, but the screen is NOT acoustically transparent?
> 
> 
> 
> In my setup there will be plenty of open air space to the left, right, and below the screen for the sound to wrap around, so do I really need the compromises that come with AT screen materials? Thanks


So are stating you are contemplating placing a non-AT screen in front of your speakers? Deflecting your soundwaves around the screen ,hence redirecting the sound to your walls and away from your ears sounds like a terrible idea, pun intended. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## nathan_h

surroundsound99 said:


> Does anyone have a retractable screen with speakers in back, but the screen is NOT acoustically transparent?
> 
> In my setup there will be plenty of open air space to the left, right, and below the screen for the sound to wrap around, so do I really need the compromises that come with AT screen materials? Thanks


You can test this for yourself. Cut up some cardboard boxes, to make a "sheet" of cardboard that is 5 feet tall by however wide your speakers are apart. Place the cardboard in front of the speakers, so that you cannot see the speakers. You can use some dining chairs to raise the cardboard sheet up off the ground by a couple of feet.

Then listen to some of your favorite music and decide if this is acceptable sound for your room. If so, then you have your answer.


----------



## Ladeback

surroundsound99 said:


> Does anyone have a retractable screen with speakers in back, but the screen is NOT acoustically transparent?
> 
> In my setup there will be plenty of open air space to the left, right, and below the screen for the sound to wrap around, so do I really need the compromises that come with AT screen materials? Thanks


To me I would think the sound would be muffled and wouldn't sound right. The most important speaker to not be covered is your center channel since the dialog comes from there.

Do you not have the room to move the speakers out farther?


----------



## surroundsound99

skylarlove1999 said:


> So are stating you are contemplating placing a non-AT screen in front of your speakers? Deflecting your soundwaves around the screen ,hence redirecting the sound to your walls and away from your ears sounds like a terrible idea, pun intended.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Yeah... I know it "sounds" like a bad idea (nice pun!)... but that's what I was thinking... choosing an AT screen seems to be an exercise in compromises anyways so maybe I could get higher picture quality by settling for lower sound quality? Just thinking out loud.


----------



## skylarlove1999

surroundsound99 said:


> Yeah... I know it "sounds" like a bad idea (nice pun!)... but that's what I was thinking... choosing an AT screen seems to be an exercise in compromises anyways so maybe I could get higher picture quality by settling for lower sound quality? Just thinking out loud.


I think the better solution for you would be a smaller screen that doesn't compromise your video or audio. You can more your seating forward to increase the immersion and give the illusion of a larger screen. Were you choosing a 16x9 screen or a scope screen?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## surroundsound99

nathan_h said:


> You can test this for yourself. Cut up some cardboard boxes, to make a "sheet" of cardboard that is 5 feet tall by however wide your speakers are apart. Place the cardboard in front of the speakers, so that you cannot see the speakers. You can use some dining chairs to raise the cardboard sheet up off the ground by a couple of feet.
> 
> Then listen to some of your favorite music and decide if this is acceptable sound for your room. If so, then you have your answer.


Good idea, just need to find enough cardboard! I'm already hanging bedsheets from the ceiling and I can tell a small difference in sound quality just from that.


----------



## surroundsound99

Ladeback said:


> To me I would think the sound would be muffled and wouldn't sound right. The most important speaker to not be covered is your center channel since the dialog comes from there.
> 
> Do you not have the room to move the speakers out farther?


Yes, I cannot move my right speaker out any farther because the doorway is right there.


----------



## surroundsound99

skylarlove1999 said:


> I think the better solution for you would be a smaller screen that doesn't compromise your video or audio. You can more your seating forward to increase the immersion and give the illusion of a larger screen. Were you choosing a 16x9 screen or a scope screen?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


I want about a 115" wide AT 'scope screen because I already have a non-AT 16x9 92" diagonal wall-mounted between my 804 Diamonds. You are right, my couch is lightweight and I can easily move it forward, but still, I've been wanting a large screen for MANY, MANY years, and I'm not getting any younger, so I really don't want to go any smaller than that


----------



## StevenC56

surroundsound99 said:


> I want about a 115" wide AT 'scope screen because I already have a non-AT 16x9 92" diagonal wall-mounted between my 804 Diamonds. You are right, my couch is lightweight and I can easily move it forward, but still, I've been wanting a large screen for MANY, MANY years, and I'm not getting any younger, so I really don't want to go any smaller than that


I have an XD retractable that's 2.35 105" wide which make the diagonal 114". My main speakers are just outside the screen and toed in toward my MLP that's right at 12.5' from the screen. Having the center channel behind the screen is the only way to go. It just doesn't get any better than having dialog come straight out of the screen.


----------



## surroundsound99

StevenC56 said:


> I have an XD retractable that's 2.35 105" wide which make the diagonal 114". My main speakers are just outside the screen and toed in toward my MLP that's right at 12.5' from the screen. Having the center channel behind the screen is the only way to go. It just doesn't get any better than having dialog come straight out of the screen.


Is your screen AT?

Yes, I'm looking forward to finally having a center channel behind the screen instead of underneath it.


----------



## StevenC56

surroundsound99 said:


> Is your screen AT?
> 
> Yes, I'm looking forward to finally having a center channel behind the screen instead of underneath it.


Yes on the AT screen. It's a Seymour Center Stage XD retractable. Lovely screen.


----------



## Hifisound

How does Seymour Centre Stage UF compare to Elite AcousticPro 1080P3 ? 
The https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf compares it to older (P2?) I think

Any newer report than this available ?


----------



## Hifisound

Hifisound said:


> How does Seymour Centre Stage UF compare to Elite AcousticPro 1080P3 ?
> The https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf compares it to older (P2?) I think
> 
> Any newer report than this available ?


Anyone ?


----------



## nathan_h

Hifisound said:


> How does Seymour Centre Stage UF compare to Elite AcousticPro 1080P3 ?
> The https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf compares it to older (P2?) I think
> 
> Any newer report than this available ?


Are you looking for an audio or video comparison? 

I haven't seen a more recent report from Jeff, but the trend has been that Seymour "exaggerates" less about their screens than most other manufacturers....so, based on what each manufacturer reports, I'd guess that real world gain is similar between the two and that audio attenuation is greater with the Elite screens model.

But if I was cross shopping them, I'd contact both companies for a screen material sample and compare them for myself.

There may also be price, installation, and accessibility to dealerships factors that could be more important that the differences in audio or video performance.


----------



## Hifisound

nathan_h said:


> Are you looking for an audio or video comparison?
> 
> I haven't seen a more recent report from Jeff, but the trend has been that Seymour "exaggerates" less about their screens than most other manufacturers....so, based on what each manufacturer reports, I'd guess that real world gain is similar between the two and that audio attenuation is greater with the Elite screens model.


Ok. Thanks for the input.



> But if I was cross shopping them, I'd contact both companies for a screen material sample and compare them for myself.


True , though that would be a long process for me in India.
I may be able to get Elite sample locally, but for Seymour would need to get it via someone/shipped from US.


----------



## PC Vidman

Looking to hear from anyone who has the Seymour Fixed Masking panels to go from 16:9 to 2:37 in two pieces each for top and bottom. How visible is the seam between the two pieces?

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## blake

Anyone have a chance to compare Enlightor Neo with Dreamscreen v7 ? The latter just came out and has a gain of 0.93 (D65 benchmarked) vs 0.8 for the SSE product. Both similarly acoustically transparent. 

Has Dreamscreen dethroned Enlightor Neo as the best AT screen material ?


----------



## jbn008

Just wanted to share my experience for anyone on the fence. I recently purchased a 141" (2:35) center stage XD for my new room and couldn't be any happier with the results. Jon was as informative and helpful as I could have asked for so I felt very comfortable doing business with Seymour.

I know each person perceives texture differently, but at 10 feet I couldn't see the weave so I was very relieved. For point of reference I am using a JVC NX7 and my last screen was a Stewart ST100. This is my first AT screen (always wanted one) and I'll never go back. The soundstage coming from directly behind the picture is truly cinematic.

In short...fantastic product, great customer service, very happy customer

ps, I also have the AT masking panels and they are the icing on the cake. It's crazy to think other companies haven't offered this option, but I guess that's what separates Seymour from other manufactures.

Thank you,
Jeremy


----------



## Mayo4

jbn008 said:


> Just wanted to share my experience for anyone on the fence. I recently purchased a 141" (2:35) center stage XD for my new room and couldn't be any happier with the results. Jon was as informative and helpful as I could have asked for so I felt very comfortable doing business with Seymour.
> 
> I know each person perceives texture differently, but at 10 feet I couldn't see the weave so I was very relieved. For point of reference I am using a JVC NX7 and my last screen was a Stewart ST100. This is my first AT screen (always wanted one) and I'll never go back. The soundstage coming from directly behind the picture is truly cinematic.
> 
> In short...fantastic product, great customer service, very happy customer
> 
> ps, I also have the AT masking panels and they are the icing on the cake. It's crazy to think other companies haven't offered this option, but I guess that's what separates Seymour from other manufactures.
> 
> Thank you,
> Jeremy


How are the AT masking panels in the dark? Do they disappear completely?
I'm patiently waiting for my screen to ship (been a little while now) and my one concern was the material of the AT panels not appearing black enough.


----------



## thrillcat

Unless you have a bunch of ambient lighting in the room, the panels disappear.




Mayo4 said:


> How are the AT masking panels in the dark? Do they disappear completely?
> I'm patiently waiting for my screen to ship (been a little while now) and my one concern was the material of the AT panels not appearing black enough.


----------



## jbn008

Mayo4 said:


> How are the AT masking panels in the dark? Do they disappear completely?
> I'm patiently waiting for my screen to ship (been a little while now) and my one concern was the material of the AT panels not appearing black enough.


that was my concern as well. as the previous poster said, when the lights are off you'd never know. the velvet border offers that distinct edge so it's very effective. i highly recommend them.


----------



## tbraden32

I also have the panels, when the lights are off they disappear completely. 

They make such a huge difference, my 12 year old either removes them or adds them!!! 









With them on.


----------



## BIKERJORGE

tbraden32 said:


> I also have the panels, when the lights are off they disappear completely.
> 
> They make such a huge difference, my 12 year old either removes them or adds them!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With them on.


16:9 masked to 2.35:1? How much of a pain do you find it to store the panels? Or do you just put them below your screen?


----------



## pitchcut29

BIKERJORGE said:


> 16:9 masked to 2.35:1? How much of a pain do you find it to store the panels? Or do you just put them below your screen?


I own a 130” Wide 16x9 seymour xd screen and have the top and bottom masking panels. Putting them on isn’t a problem when you’ve decided on a movie. If you demo movies, switch between formats frequently in a day then it gets a bit tedious. Storing them isnt an issue since they are thin and tall enough to fit in any closet or you can place them infront of your screen or next to tge wall and it’ll blend in the darkness. They can also be stored in a closet but I would just make sure you protect them from the floor and surroundings as not to damage the velvet. They are very well made and if tge velvet wears down or damages, it is very easy to replace.

I put mine on if I am going to watch a movie, otherwise I leave it off if I am casually watching. If you prefer the ultimate experience Id look into the proscenium screen or building your own custom smx diy screen.


----------



## surroundsound99

Jon and Chris, hope you and your team are all well after that terrible storm recently.


----------



## tbraden32

BIKERJORGE said:


> 16:9 masked to 2.35:1? How much of a pain do you find it to store the panels? Or do you just put them below your screen?


They take less then two minutes. I just set them on the floor below my screen.


----------



## BIC2

BIKERJORGE said:


> 16:9 masked to 2.35:1? How much of a pain do you find it to store the panels? Or do you just put them below your screen?


The mask panels are essential. Easy enough to attach. Store below screen. Get them.


----------



## Mayo4

BIC2 said:


> The mask panels are essential. Easy enough to attach. Store below screen. Get them.


Can also confirm the panels are great. Very easy to use. I have the AT panels and you cannot see them at all while watching content.


----------



## surroundsound99

Any suggestions for installing a retractable screen under a drop ceiling? The problem is that the studs are about 4 inches above the drop ceiling, so I'm afraid of the screen "swimming" on the flat-head screws provided. Thanks.


----------



## StevenC56

surroundsound99 said:


> Any suggestions for installing a retractable screen under a drop ceiling? The problem is that the studs are about 4 inches above the drop ceiling, so I'm afraid of the screen "swimming" on the flat-head screws provided. Thanks.


Do you have a picture of the ceiling area? I don't quite understand how the studs would be 4" above the drop. My retractable is mounted to a ceiling soffit that drops off my front 10' ceiling down to 8'. I made 3 brackets that attach to the soffit which allows the screen to drop in front of my entertainment center.


----------



## BrolicBeast

BIKERJORGE said:


> 16:9 masked to 2.35:1? How much of a pain do you find it to store the panels? Or do you just put them below your screen?


I hide mine behind the rear row when not in use. Super easy! 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Alex solomon

Which screen material from Seymore compare to the Stewart StudioTek 100 or StudioTek 130? Trying to get something similar in performance and gain at a lower price that what Stewart screen cost.


----------



## JonnyFive54950

I'm having decision paralysis when it comes to choosing my Seymour AV screen. Seating distance to front row 11', don't worry about the second row. 100% light controlled room. Going with Glacier White, no need for AT. Don't worry about the PJ, it will be upgraded and upgraded.

I was planning 120" wide scope (48.9 degree viewing angle) with magnetic masking for 16:9. But this gives a 16:9 of 90.8" wide. Football looks small on this.

Then I started thinking 130" wide to give 98.3" wide 16:9. This is acceptable 16:9 I think, but man that's big for watching a movie. 130" wide is about 52.4 degree viewing angle and I really have to open my eyeballs to take it all in. 

Alternatively, we can get a 110-120" 16:9 and do Proscenium masking to get the 110-120" wide scope (I'd never bring myself to install huge horizontal bars manually). But this over doubles the price of the screen. 

And once again, I just can't see myself manually installing the huge horizontal bars, so the masking will have to be the more manageable vertical panels if done manually. 

Anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks for any help!!!!


----------



## avsBuddy

Horizontal masking for Seymour is split into two panels in the middle so they aren’t huge, as far as I understand. Glacier White real gain is closer to 1.0 so it’s more comparable to Studiotek 100 than 130.


----------



## chriscmore

Alex solomon said:


> Which screen material from Seymore compare to the Stewart StudioTek 100 or StudioTek 130? Trying to get something similar in performance and gain at a lower price that what Stewart screen cost.


The Glacier White material is about mid-way between the two. It doesn't have the reflective dots that the ST130 has.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## BIC2

JonnyFive54950 said:


> I'm having decision paralysis when it comes to choosing my Seymour AV screen. Seating distance to front row 11', don't worry about the second row. 100% light controlled room. Going with Glacier White, no need for AT. Don't worry about the PJ, it will be upgraded and upgraded.
> 
> I was planning 120" wide scope (48.9 degree viewing angle) with magnetic masking for 16:9. But this gives a 16:9 of 90.8" wide. Football looks small on this.
> 
> Then I started thinking 130" wide to give 98.3" wide 16:9. This is acceptable 16:9 I think, but man that's big for watching a movie. 130" wide is about 52.4 degree viewing angle and I really have to open my eyeballs to take it all in.
> 
> Alternatively, we can get a 110-120" 16:9 and do Proscenium masking to get the 110-120" wide scope (I'd never bring myself to install huge horizontal bars manually). But this over doubles the price of the screen.
> 
> And once again, I just can't see myself manually installing the huge horizontal bars, so the masking will have to be the more manageable vertical panels if done manually.
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts?
> 
> Thanks for any help!!!!


I had screen size decision paralysis for months. I sit 11 ft from a 130" wide (149" d) Center Stage XD 16:9 with magnetic panels for 2:35. It's perfect---just do it. As avsBuddy mentioned, panels are split, 2 top & 2 bottom, and not a big deal to handle. I store on floor, leaning against wall, below screen. Definitely get the panels---makes a big difference.


----------



## JonnyFive54950

BIC2 said:


> I had screen size decision paralysis for months. I sit 11 ft from a 130" wide (149" d) Center Stage XD 16:9 with magnetic panels for 2:35. It's perfect---just do it. As avsBuddy mentioned, panels are split, 2 top & 2 bottom, and not a big deal to handle. I store on floor, leaning against wall, below screen. Definitely get the panels---makes a big difference.


Awesome, thanks so much. This has me leaning back towards 120" 16:9 with split masking panels for 2.35. Question,do you see a seem where the two panels join?


----------



## Alex solomon

chriscmore said:


> The Glacier White material is about mid-way between the two. It doesn't have the reflective dots that the ST130 has.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris. I am leaning to a Seymour screen vs Stewart due to the manual masking panels option. I don't need AT screen but want the best screen material that is as good as a Stewart Studiotek picture quality wise. Gain aside, is the Glacier White the best non-AT screen you offer? Where can I order a sample? Would like bigger than a 12" sample. Thanks


----------



## chriscmore

Alex solomon said:


> Thanks Chris. I am leaning to a Seymour screen vs Stewart due to the manual masking panels option. I don't need AT screen but want the best screen material that is as good as a Stewart Studiotek picture quality wise. Gain aside, is the Glacier White the best non-AT screen you offer? Where can I order a sample? Would like bigger than a 12" sample. Thanks


Hi Alex- Yes, if you don't need AT (as hard as it is to imagine ), then the Glacier White PS is the best. It's perfectly smooth and featureless looking, which a screen should be like.

The standard letter size is available easily from Jon or Jess, or if you'd like us to ship you a 24x24" tube they can take care of that low-cost order.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## BIC2

JonnyFive54950 said:


> Awesome, thanks so much. This has me leaning back towards 120" 16:9 with split masking panels for 2.35. Question,do you see a seem where the two panels join?


It depends. There is the slightest gap between the panels, probably for ease of installation. You can either push them together for no gap or push them out for the slight, maybe 1/4" gap. There is a benefit to the gap.

If I forget to check the aspect ratio before watching, and the panels are up and the movie is 16:9 or 1:85, the gap tells me to remove the panels. The panels work so well, if there is no gap, you might not know you forgot to take panels off. If you're watching 2:35, you don't see the gap until you watch the extras. Then the gap reminds you you're now in 16:9. Bottom line--gap is good. If you disagree, push them together to eliminate gap; you will not see the seam. BTW, even though my screen is AT, I have the non-AT panels since they don't cover my speakers.


----------



## Alex solomon

chriscmore said:


> Hi Alex- Yes, if you don't need AT (as hard as it is to imagine ), then the Glacier White PS is the best. It's perfectly smooth and featureless looking, which a screen should be like.
> 
> The standard letter size is available easily from Jon or Jess, or if you'd like us to ship you a 24x24" tube they can take care of that low-cost order.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris. Maybe someday I will get AR screen. My HT room is a not a dedicated one. It is a 20 x17 room that I also use as my home office. I just need a nice screen to replace my current one which is getting smaller and smaller by the day


----------



## thrillcat

Alex solomon said:


> Thanks Chris. Maybe someday I will get AR screen. My HT room is a not a dedicated one. It is a 20 x17 room that I also use as my home office. I just need a nice screen to replace my current one which is getting smaller and smaller by the day


that’s bigger than my room and I have an AT screen. 😉 The benefit of having 3 identical LCRs properly configured behind the screen is something I will never give up, I will never let it down. I will never run around and desert it. Sorry. But it’s true. Once you’ve had it, it’s hard to imagine life without it.


----------



## DubbyMcDubs

Got my XD screen on friday and spent yesterday building the frame and mouting it. Love it!


----------



## chriscmore

Love it! That floor to ceiling image height will be nearly as overwhelming as that horn-based, identical LCR front soundstage. Fantastic!


----------



## DubbyMcDubs

chriscmore said:


> Love it! That floor to ceiling image height will be nearly as overwhelming as that horn-based, identical LCR front soundstage. Fantastic!



Haha, thanks Chris! It is very immersive. I tested out the size with bed sheets before I ordered and really liked it despite it not really adhearing to the "standards" I saw published here and there.

The quality, packaging and build are really first class. So glad I went with your company. The image has blown me away.


----------



## chriscmore

Vutec, in business since 1977 making video projection screens, has announced it is closing its doors. It's sad to see an innovative, US-made company exit the market. Vutec Announces Shut Down, Ceases Operation - CEPRO


----------



## Ladeback

DubbyMcDubs said:


> Got my XD screen on friday and spent yesterday building the frame and mouting it. Love it!
> 
> View attachment 3054069
> 
> View attachment 3054070


I like the look of this, but wonder do your feet get in the way when you recline or do you not have recliners in the room?


----------



## DubbyMcDubs

Ladeback said:


> I like the look of this, but wonder do your feet get in the way when you recline or do you not have recliners in the room?


My couch is modular and is configured in a way where we lay down on it, so sometimes yes feet can get in the way, however I dont find it distracting or an issue personally. It's one of those things you just have to try.

Here are a few pics, including one I took while sitting on the couch:


----------



## pitchcut29

DubbyMcDubs said:


> My couch is modular and is configured in a way where we lay down on it, so sometimes yes feet can get in the way, however I dont find it distracting or an issue personally. It's one of those things you just have to try.
> 
> Here are a few pics, including one I took while sitting on the couch:
> 
> View attachment 3055318
> 
> View attachment 3055319
> 
> View attachment 3055320


Sweet setup! How big is the screen?


----------



## DubbyMcDubs

pitchcut29 said:


> Sweet setup! How big is the screen?


Thanks! 155" diagonal


----------



## dryeye

155" 16x9 image mounted just above the floor... I bet it feels like you can just walk right into whatever is playing on the screen. I know that's how I felt after seeing a 150" screen.


----------



## Ladeback

@DubbyMcDubs, I like that setup and have thought about going with something that. See photo. I think my wife would like it more. If I did a second row the riser wouldn't have to be as high for a recliner.


----------



## DubbyMcDubs

dryeye said:


> 155" 16x9 image mounted just above the floor... I bet it feels like you can just walk right into whatever is playing on the screen. I know that's how I felt after seeing a 150" screen.


It does. 3D is also very special to watch.


----------



## DubbyMcDubs

Ladeback said:


> @DubbyMcDubs, I like that setup and have thought about going with something that. See photo. I think my wife would like it more. If I did a second row the riser wouldn't have to be as high for a recliner.
> View attachment 3055901


I personally like this type of lounge, especially if its a modular type, because of the comfort and you can reconfigure it to be two rows if required. If splitting it to make two rows temporarily, I have been thinking of using these:






Set of 4 – 5” (125mm) Bed/Furniture Riser, Chocolate – CB650 | Slipstick Foot


The Slipstick Bed and Furniture risers, raise furniture to allow more space for storage underneath the furniture and allow the furniture to be at a better height if it is too low. it has a soft rubber insert in the top to reduce movement of the furniture leg and rubber dots on the bottom to stop...




www.slipstick.com.au





For reference, this is the lounge I have but in version 1:






Jasper Modular Sofa - Award-winning design | Modular | Lounge | Couch - King Living


Discover the multi-award-winning Jasper modular sofa by King Living, the perfect sofa for open plan living rooms and growing families.




www.kingliving.com.au


----------



## DubbyMcDubs

Here is the XD material backlit using 3x LIFX strips. Works quite well I think.


----------



## surroundsound99

Call me ignorant but I just learned that you're not supposed to mix galvanized and steel washers, bolts and screws together. I already installed my new retractable 113" screen suspended from the ceiling with a mix of Grade 8 steel rods, Grade 8 nuts, but some 316 washers, some hardware store washers probably steel, can't remember, and I also used Simpson galvanized nail stoppers on the 2x4 braces to give the rods more stability and to give the washers a more sturdy place to clamp down on, instead of just the soft wood.

1) Do I need to re-do this installation? Will the connectors corrode over time? It's an indoor installation obviously, but still.
2) What type of metal is the DIN rail? McMaster.com lists several types: aluminum, zinc-plated steel, 304 stainless steel. 3) In other words, what type of connectors should I be using (should I have used) with the DIN rail? 

Signed,
Embarrased


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> Call me ignorant but I just learned that you're not supposed to mix galvanized and steel washers, bolts and screws together. I already installed my new retractable 113" screen suspended from the ceiling with a mix of Grade 8 steel rods, Grade 8 nuts, but some 316 washers, some hardware store washers probably steel, can't remember, and I also used Simpson galvanized nail stoppers on the 2x4 braces to give the rods more stability and to give the washers a more sturdy place to clamp down on, instead of just the soft wood.
> 
> 1) Do I need to re-do this installation? Will the connectors corrode over time? It's an indoor installation obviously, but still.
> 2) What type of metal is the DIN rail? McMaster.com lists several types: aluminum, zinc-plated steel, 304 stainless steel. 3) In other words, what type of connectors should I be using (should I have used) with the DIN rail?
> 
> Signed,
> Embarrased


The DIN bar is zinc plated steel. I haven't seen any indoor corrosion that wasn't waterside or marine, in which case they take extra care. I'd inspect and evaluate their integrity, but in a low-humidity, low-salt interior installation, there are a lot of worse things you could do.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## tcramer

surroundsound99 said:


> Call me ignorant but I just learned that you're not supposed to mix galvanized and steel washers, bolts and screws together. I already installed my new retractable 113" screen suspended from the ceiling with a mix of Grade 8 steel rods, Grade 8 nuts, but some 316 washers, some hardware store washers probably steel, can't remember, and I also used Simpson galvanized nail stoppers on the 2x4 braces to give the rods more stability and to give the washers a more sturdy place to clamp down on, instead of just the soft wood.
> 
> 1) Do I need to re-do this installation? Will the connectors corrode over time? It's an indoor installation obviously, but still.
> 2) What type of metal is the DIN rail? McMaster.com lists several types: aluminum, zinc-plated steel, 304 stainless steel. 3) In other words, what type of connectors should I be using (should I have used) with the DIN rail?
> 
> Signed,
> Embarrased


You must be following the JVC NX thread. 😁 

Indoors, I don't think you need to worry about it.


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> The DIN bar is zinc plated steel. I haven't seen any indoor corrosion that wasn't waterside or marine, in which case they take extra care. I'd inspect and evaluate their integrity, but in a low-humidity, low-salt interior installation, there are a lot of worse things you could do.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thank you Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

tcramer said:


> You must be following the JVC NX thread. 😁
> 
> Indoors, I don't think you need to worry about it.


Yeah that's me. Thank you for your input.


----------



## surroundsound99

What are everyone's thoughts on expanding the DIN rail hole from 1/4" to 5/16"? Thanks


----------



## matt halle

Question with the masking panels. If you build your own frame, are you able to use the panels?


----------



## nathan_h

They rely on precisely positioned magnets and a specific frame thickness.

They are so custom I couldn’t even get the feature added to my screen after purchase (woops).


----------



## chriscmore

matt halle said:


> Question with the masking panels. If you build your own frame, are you able to use the panels?


The only way we can guarantee the fit is if the masking panels fit to our frame, since they're an interference fit with tight dimensional specifications. If you do want to mate them to a DIY frame, then I'd recommend getting the panels first and building the frame to fit the panels instead of vice versa.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Black95tt

DubbyMcDubs said:


> Here is the XD material backlit using 3x LIFX strips. Works quite well I think.
> 
> View attachment 3062377


I love the look. What are the strips attached to? Do they point inward or straight up?


----------



## DubbyMcDubs

Black95tt said:


> I love the look. What are the strips attached to? Do they point inward or straight up?


Thank you! They are simply stuck to the base plate of the perimeter frame I made for the screen, pointing straight up.


----------



## sambow87

Does anyone have experience with the proscenium screen? 

I currently have a premier screen (believe H105 16x9) with UF material. I also got the 4 masking panels for the top and bottom. The only issue I have is that the masking panels aren't...perfect. Especially the top ones in the center where the material is glued. This creates a bit of a bump across the top of the panels which means it's not perfectly straight across the screen. If it was at the ends I don't think I'd mind as much, but it's a _bit_ noticeable when watching. I compensated by shifting the project down a bit so it's under the top masking panels.

I was talking with Seymour and they do offer single panels for the top and bottom (costs more to ship). I'm thinking of going that route but also am considering going the proscenium route as well. I do understand the price difference is....noticeable between the two options 

Just trying to get ideas! I love the screen though, looks amazing with the epson 5050!


----------



## tortelvis

Question - How far from the top of the screen does it attach to the french cleats? I downloaded the hanging instructions but it doesn't show. Is the top of the frame also the cleat?
I am designing the minimalist goal post screen wall and I need to know where to put the cross member. Thanks!


----------



## sambow87

Hey tortelvis,

I went through the same exact thing! Here is an album of my minimalist goal post screen wall. The cleats are pretty close to the top of the frame.



http://imgur.com/a/eEANdl2


----------



## tortelvis

Thank you! So it looks like the top of the screen is just slightly above the top of the cleat, and you put the cleat screws in the center of your cross board. Very helpful to see.


----------



## BrolicBeast

tortelvis said:


> Thank you! So it looks like the top of the screen is just slightly above the top of the cleat, and you put the cleat screws in the center of your cross board. Very helpful to see.


Just to add numbers, I think it’s 0.5” beneath the top of the border. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## surroundsound99

I have a Seymour retractable screen already installed using the top rail. I am going to connect another DIN rail to the back side of the unit. The screw holes on the back are not tapped. They're drilled, just not tapped. My question is, am I better of using "thread-forming" self-tapping screws, or "thread-cutting" self-tapping screws, or just the screws Jon sent me with the 2nd DIN rail? Thanks


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> I have a Seymour retractable screen already installed using the top rail. I am going to connect another DIN rail to the back side of the unit. The screw holes on the back are not tapped. They're drilled, just not tapped. My question is, am I better of using "thread-forming" self-tapping screws, or "thread-cutting" self-tapping screws, or just the screws Jon sent me with the 2nd DIN rail? Thanks


The screws Jon sent you should be thread cutting, as that's I think the only type of those screws we have in inventory. If for some reason you don't think the ones Jon sent will cut the threads, you could back out one of the top screws and use that as a thread cutter. The aluminum is quite easy to work with, especially if you use a drop of oil in the hole.

As a side note, the back set screws are less critical since the case will hang on the back rail without them. They would just keep the case from being bumped up and off the rail, but unlike the ceiling install, gravity is helping you.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> The screws Jon sent you should be thread cutting, as that's I think the only type of those screws we have in inventory. If for some reason you don't think the ones Jon sent will cut the threads, you could back out one of the top screws and use that as a thread cutter. The aluminum is quite easy to work with, especially if you use a drop of oil in the hole.
> 
> As a side note, the back set screws are less critical since the case will hang on the back rail without them. They would just keep the case from being bumped up and off the rail, but unlike the ceiling install, gravity is helping you.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> Thanks for the quick reply Chris! I appreciate it. Good suggestions.


----------



## Mike Butny

I got my 125inch 2.37:1 XD screen installed a few weeks ago and WOW am I impressed. I'm coming from a 100inch 16x9 Dalite JKP Affinity.9 gain screen. I do not notice the weave at all from my seating position. What I noticed SQ wise is my center channel/ front sound stage is louder than before, and I was wondering if its because all 3 front speakers, which are behind the screen, the tweeters are now at the same height compared to before where my center channel was lower ( underneath the screen), or if it's because I do not have any sound treatment on the front wall which is making the front sound stage sound bright. Everything behind the screen is covered in black velvet, sidewalls, and ceiling. I see people treat the front wall with acoustical treatments and I do have 2 spare acoustical panels measuring 25.5 inches wide and 6ft high with 4inch Owens-Corning and Roxul in it that I can hang on the front wall. I removed these when I build the false wall. Both panels are wrapped with black acoustical fabric but I'm afraid that the light will bounce off of them onto the back of the screen and hurt the picture quality. I did not get the extra black screen backing as I was told that if everything behind the screen were black or non-reflective, there would be no need for it. Every inch behind the screen is black velvet including velvet draped over the speakers. Is the front sound stage louder/brighter because all 3 speakers ( tweeter ) are now the same proper height OR because the speakers are now behind the screen and the wall behind them which does have black velvet from top to bottom is not properly treated? Has any without the back backing installed acoustical panels behind the screen notice any loss in PQ from light bouncing off of them onto the screen?


----------



## chriscmore

Mike Butny said:


> I got my 125inch 2.37:1 XD screen installed a few weeks ago and WOW am I impressed. I'm coming from a 100inch 16x9 Dalite JKP Affinity.9 gain screen. I do not notice the weave at all from my seating position. What I noticed SQ wise is my center channel/ front sound stage is louder than before, and I was wondering if its because all 3 front speakers, which are behind the screen, the tweeters are now at the same height compared to before where my center channel was lower ( underneath the screen), or if it's because I do not have any sound treatment on the front wall which is making the front sound stage sound bright. Everything behind the screen is covered in black velvet, sidewalls, and ceiling. I see people treat the front wall with acoustical treatments and I do have 2 spare acoustical panels measuring 25.5 inches wide and 6ft high with 4inch Owens-Corning and Roxul in it that I can hang on the front wall. I removed these when I build the false wall. Both panels are wrapped with black acoustical fabric but I'm afraid that the light will bounce off of them onto the back of the screen and hurt the picture quality. I did not get the extra black screen backing as I was told that if everything behind the screen were black or non-reflective, there would be no need for it. Every inch behind the screen is black velvet including velvet draped over the speakers. Is the front sound stage louder/brighter because all 3 speakers ( tweeter ) are now the same proper height OR because the speakers are now behind the screen and the wall behind them which does have black velvet from top to bottom is not properly treated? Has any without the back backing installed acoustical panels behind the screen notice any loss in PQ from light bouncing off of them onto the screen?


Congrats on your theater upgrade! There wouldn't be any performance difference with respect to light blocking from the black velvet behind the screen and the black AT fabric you have on your panels. So I'd recommend taking the screen down, and playing around with the panels and speaker placement so that you get everything acoustically perfect. Then you can hang the screen without affecting your results. I'd consider placing each panel between the three speakers to better absorb first reflection points that near your speaker, as it would tighten up the focus of each channel.

The proper height and axis for the speaker's designed radiation is important. You're certainly hearing some benefit from the center channel being at the proper height. Also experiment with crossing the L/R in front of the center position, as this would spread out the response for the off-axis seats. The left seats would get more right channel, and vice versa. This would improve the imaging for the off-axis seats.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Mike Butny

chriscmore said:


> Congrats on your theater upgrade! There wouldn't be any performance difference with respect to light blocking from the black velvet behind the screen and the black AT fabric you have on your panels. So I'd recommend taking the screen down, and playing around with the panels and speaker placement so that you get everything acoustically perfect. Then you can hang the screen without affecting your results. I'd consider placing each panel between the three speakers to better absorb first reflection points that near your speaker, as it would tighten up the focus of each channel.
> 
> The proper height and axis for the speaker's designed radiation is important. You're certainly hearing some benefit from the center channel being at the proper height. Also experiment with crossing the L/R in front of the center position, as this would spread out the response for the off-axis seats. The left seats would get more right channel, and vice versa. This would improve the imaging for the off-axis seats.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks, Chris. I will install the 2 panels between the speakers and run calibration and see how it sounds. Thank you for making such a great product as I'm amazed every time I fire up the projector and watch a movie. I wish I did this upgrade years ago. I no longer feel like I'm watching a movie at home, it now feels like I'm at the local theater. I wanted to say to anyone on the fence to definitely give Seymour a try. Chris and Jon were a joy to work with and they answered any question I had and believe me I asked a ton of questions. What really shocked me was how much the actual screen looked better than the large sample. There's something about viewing an image on the large screen compared to the sample. The weave seems to disappear on the screen compared to the sample. I can't see the weave unless I get very close to it while a movie is being played. I really can't put into words how happy I am with my new screen. Thanks again, Chris.


----------



## surroundsound99

1) The black backing of my retractable screen rubs against the back of the case when opening and when closing. Will it eventually get caught up and cause a big problem? What can be done if anything?
2) How do I fix these ripples, or "puckers", which are on corresponding sides of my UF screens?


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> 1) The black backing of my retractable screen rubs against the back of the case when opening and when closing. Will it eventually get caught up and cause a big problem? What can be done if anything?
> 2) How do I fix these ripples, or "puckers", which are on corresponding sides of my UF screens?


1) The black backing layer can lightly rub against the case, usually in screens that are pushing the maximum amount of material that can be rolled up in the case (e.g. larger screens and/or longer drop). The part to inspect is if the black backing layer looks like it wants to hang up on the case. If you think the case is in danger of holding onto the BB, then there are a couple tweaks. First, check that the case is level or tilted down. What we don't want is it tilting back. Second, you can adjust the upper limits of the motor so that the bar has a 1/2" or so further out of the case to ensure no snagging risk. The motor adjustment tool was included for such things. The material will pack more tightly over time, especially the deep velvet pile borders, so assuming this is a new screen it may take a little time to settle in.

2) The vertical cables can be adjusted for less vertical tension. With a razor blade, pry open the end caps so you can see the bottom turnbuckle eyelet. With a helper applying needle-nose pliers to the upper and lower eyelet, grab the barrel and rotate it longer. The top eyelet is the standard thread, so lefty loosey. If you find loosening it all the way, or even disconnecting them isn't enough, we can send you thread extenders.

Feel free to contact me, Jon, Jess or Josh for follow-ups.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> 1) The black backing layer can lightly rub against the case, usually in screens that are pushing the maximum amount of material that can be rolled up in the case (e.g. larger screens and/or longer drop). The part to inspect is if the black backing layer looks like it wants to hang up on the case. If you think the case is in danger of holding onto the BB, then there are a couple tweaks. First, check that the case is level or tilted down. What we don't want is it tilting back. Second, you can adjust the upper limits of the motor so that the bar has a 1/2" or so further out of the case to ensure no snagging risk. The motor adjustment tool was included for such things. The material will pack more tightly over time, especially the deep velvet pile borders, so assuming this is a new screen it may take a little time to settle in.
> 
> 2) The vertical cables can be adjusted for less vertical tension. With a razor blade, pry open the end caps so you can see the bottom turnbuckle eyelet. With a helper applying needle-nose pliers to the upper and lower eyelet, grab the barrel and rotate it longer. The top eyelet is the standard thread, so lefty loosey. If you find loosening it all the way, or even disconnecting them isn't enough, we can send you thread extenders.
> 
> Feel free to contact me, Jon, Jess or Josh for follow-ups.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


The motor adjustment tool, is that the yellow curved thing that was in the same box with the remote and the popcorn? How does that work?


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> The motor adjustment tool, is that the yellow curved thing that was in the same box with the remote and the popcorn? How does that work?


Yes. On the motor's head is a hex pot for raising and lowering the roller. On the raising-direction roller, you'd stick the adjustment tool in and rotate maybe 1/2 turn to the "-" direction indicated. Actuate the screen up and down to test out how the upper limit was changed.

Call in and we can talk you through it while you're up on the ladder.

Cheers
Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> Yes. On the motor's head is a hex pot for raising and lowering the roller. On the raising-direction roller, you'd stick the adjustment tool in and rotate maybe 1/2 turn to the "-" direction indicated. Actuate the screen up and down to test out how the upper limit was changed.
> 
> Call in and we can talk you through it while you're up on the ladder.
> 
> Cheers
> Chris


Sounds good, will do. 
Thank you


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> Sounds good, will do.
> Thank you


I wasn't clear in my explanation that there are two pots: one for the roller-up and one for roller-down directions. EACH pot has their own + and - directions to change either the upper or lower limits. After you see the motor head, the first thing to do is determine which pot is which by its roller direction arrow.

Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> I wasn't clear in my explanation that there are two pots: one for the roller-up and one for roller-down directions. EACH pot has their own + and - directions to change either the upper or lower limits. After you see the motor head, the first thing to do is determine which pot is which by its roller direction arrow.
> 
> Chris


Got it, thanks. I assume that the panel needs to come off in order to make these adjustments?


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> Got it, thanks. I assume that the panel needs to come off in order to make these adjustments?


No, don't disassemble anything. Lower the screen bar out of the slot and you can access the head of the motor through the drop slot with the bendy yellow thing. A flashlight will help.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> No, don't disassemble anything. Lower the screen bar out of the slot and you can access the head of the motor through the drop slot with the bendy yellow thing. A flashlight will help.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I see, thanks!


----------



## brazensol

Just called and ordered samples of the XD and UF. Really hoping the XD will work for me. I remeasured my viewing distance this morning (to refresh my memory) and, depending on the amount of recline used, varies between 9' 2" and 9' 6". That is a foot closer than what I thought I had.

Currently using a DIY white over black Spandex screen whose only major fault is being ~0.8 gain. I have recently found myself wanting a bit more brightness (bulb has 1600+ hour now and is run in high). A screen with a gain of 1.0 - 1.2 will be helpful and someday an anamorphic lense (waiting on the next Panamorph B-stock sale) should get me to where I want to be (until laser based projectors come down in price anyway).


----------



## DavidK442

brazensol said:


> Just called and ordered samples of the XD and UF. Really hoping the XD will work for me. I remeasured my viewing distance this morning (to refresh my memory) and, depending on the amount of recline used, varies between 9' 2" and 9' 6". That is a foot closer than what I thought I had.
> 
> Currently using a DIY white over black Spandex screen whose only major fault is being ~0.08 gain. I have recently found myself wanting a bit more brightness (bulb has 1600+ hour now and is run in high). A screen with a gain of 1.0 - 1.2 will be helpful and someday an anamorphic lens (waiting on the next Panamorph B-stock sale) should get me to where I want to be (until laser based projectors come down in price anyway).


Most would find your 60 degree viewing angle extreme, but I'm with you at 8' from a 112" wide white over black spandex screen. Your black levels with the JVC-RS540 on that size of a 0.8'ish gain screen must be fantastic.
A few years ago I tried an XD sample at my original viewing distance of 9.5' and the "dirty screen" effect was just too much of a compromise, though the extra gain sure made colors pop.
Looking at your equipment I would say you are a discriminating viewer so XD at 9.5' has no chance.
I also tried a sample of UF and saw no visible weave, but the gain and image in general was so close to spandex that it wasn't worth the upgrade for me (the cost and pulling hundreds of staples).
If I was looking to build a new screen from scratch I would forgo the spandex and move right to UF.
Good luck and I will be interested to read your thoughts once the samples arrive.


----------



## brazensol

DavidK442 said:


> Most would find your 60 degree viewing angle extreme, but I'm with you at 8' from a 112" wide white over black spandex screen. Your black levels with the JVC-RS540 on that size of a 0.8'ish gain screen must be fantastic.
> A few years ago I tried an XD sample at my original viewing distance of 9.5' and the "dirty screen" effect was just too much of a compromise, though the extra gain sure made colors pop.
> Looking at your equipment I would say you are a discriminating viewer so XD at 9.5' has no chance.
> I also tried a sample of UF and saw no visible weave, but the gain and image in general was so close to spandex that it wasn't worth the upgrade for me (the cost and pulling hundreds of staples).
> If I was looking to build a new screen from scratch I would forgo the spandex and move right to UF.
> Good luck and I will be interested to read your thoughts once the samples arrive.



Thanks for the reply. Yes, the black level is truly fantastic and the main reason why I held off on 'upgrading' to the newest JVC projectors. My Panasonic does a good job with HDR. The dirty screen effect is what I am hoping to avoid but will see when the samples get here. I've looked at the Dreamscreen V7 and it looks like it has some promise but will wait for them to make the DIY version in a smaller size (and smaller price point hopefully!). I wished I had jumped the last time Panamorph had some B-stock lenses on sale but, alas, I waited too long. That ~30% bump would probably be enough to keep my happy plus it would be nice to have menu's on the screen instead of above and below on the black velvet which makes them difficult to see.

Not sure about discriminating but I try! 😆 Never thought of the viewing angle as extreme but I guess it might be a bit, however, I never had a problem watching a Lord of the Rings marathon but a Harry Potter marathon just might give me a crick in my neck!


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> 1) The black backing layer can lightly rub against the case, usually in screens that are pushing the maximum amount of material that can be rolled up in the case (e.g. larger screens and/or longer drop). The part to inspect is if the black backing layer looks like it wants to hang up on the case. If you think the case is in danger of holding onto the BB, then there are a couple tweaks. First, check that the case is level or tilted down. What we don't want is it tilting back. Second, you can adjust the upper limits of the motor so that the bar has a 1/2" or so further out of the case to ensure no snagging risk. The motor adjustment tool was included for such things. The material will pack more tightly over time, especially the deep velvet pile borders, so assuming this is a new screen it may take a little time to settle in.
> 
> 2) The vertical cables can be adjusted for less vertical tension. With a razor blade, pry open the end caps so you can see the bottom turnbuckle eyelet. With a helper applying needle-nose pliers to the upper and lower eyelet, grab the barrel and rotate it longer. The top eyelet is the standard thread, so lefty loosey. If you find loosening it all the way, or even disconnecting them isn't enough, we can send you thread extenders.
> 
> Feel free to contact me, Jon, Jess or Josh for follow-ups.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


How do I know if the black backing "wants to hang up on the case" as you put it? What signs do I look for?
If I have roughly 50 inches of material dropping, would that be "pushing the maximum amount of material that can be rolled up in the case"?


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> How do I know if the black backing "wants to hang up on the case" as you put it? What signs do I look for?
> If I have roughly 50 inches of material dropping, would that be "pushing the maximum amount of material that can be rolled up in the case"?


Does the black backing layer lift or just touch? If it lifts, that would be in indication that it's encountering enough resistance to look into. If not, just touching the case is no foul.

Yes, 50" of drop is a lot of material, so that's pushing the material allowance in the case. Feel free to send a video clip to Jon or Jess if you would like them to look at its behavior.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> Does the black backing layer lift or just touch? If it lifts, that would be in indication that it's encountering enough resistance to look into. If not, just touching the case is no foul.
> 
> Yes, 50" of drop is a lot of material, so that's pushing the material allowance in the case. Feel free to send a video clip to Jon or Jess if you would like them to look at its behavior.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


The black backing is currently only just touching. No lifting, not yet. It's audible. That's how I noticed it.
What I can do apparently is to hold the bottom bar forward while it's opening and closing.
That works alright but when it's close to retracting back in all the way, I stop the retraction, let the screen go, stop it from wobbling, and the retract it the rest of the way without touching it, even though at that point you can hear the rubbing.

In addition to alot of material, the back rail I installed is somewhat bowing in the back panel. It's not an obvious bow. In fact I didn't discover it until a week or two after install. But if you judge the back panel against the straightness of the bottom rod, you can see it. Also the unit is ever so slightly pitched backwards. Again hardly noticeable but it's there. So there are three reasons why it's rubbing: lots of material, the bow in back, and the very slight pitch.

As it keeps rubbing against the back, will the rubbing degrade the integrity of the black backing over time?


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> The black backing is currently only just touching. No lifting, not yet. It's audible. That's how I noticed it.
> What I can do apparently is to hold the bottom bar forward while it's opening and closing.
> That works alright but when it's close to retracting back in all the way, I stop the retraction, let the screen go, stop it from wobbling, and the retract it the rest of the way without touching it, even though at that point you can hear the rubbing.
> 
> In addition to alot of material, the back rail I installed is somewhat bowing in the back panel. It's not an obvious bow. In fact I didn't discover it until a week or two after install. But if you judge the back panel against the straightness of the bottom rod, you can see it. Also the unit is ever so slightly pitched backwards. Again hardly noticeable but it's there. So there are three reasons why it's rubbing: lots of material, the bow in back, and the very slight pitch.
> 
> As it keeps rubbing against the back, will the rubbing degrade the integrity of the black backing over time?


No, the touching won't cause any problems. If you want to level out the mounting or err on the side of forward, shimming the rail mount to the wall or ceiling would be easy. Finally, as mentioned, lowering the upper limit a little will reduce the final roll up a bit.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> No, the touching won't cause any problems. If you want to level out the mounting or err on the side of forward, shimming the rail mount to the wall or ceiling would be easy. Finally, as mentioned, lowering the upper limit a little will reduce the final roll up a bit.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


What is procedure if disaster does strike and the black backing crumples up inside the case?


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> What is procedure if disaster does strike and the black backing crumples up inside the case?


It has never happened before. We tie the corners of the BB to the weight bar as a back-up and to help keep things tidy. If it were to hang up, those ties would pull it down at the corners. If that weren't enough and worse happened, you have a good warranty to rely on.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## surroundsound99

chriscmore said:


> It has never happened before. We tie the corners of the BB to the weight bar as a back-up and to help keep things tidy. If it were to hang up, those ties would pull it down at the corners. If that weren't enough and worse happened, you have a good warranty to rely on.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Good news, I spent about 10 hours on Saturday re-building the back support structure and I think it's not going to be a problem now. I straightened out the bow of the back panel and I titled the case forward slightly, so now the screen is only rubbing for the first few inches in or out of the case, maybe four or five at the most. It was rubbing for about 12 to 15 before, so I'm much happier with that. I really don't think the black backing going to catch, or get caught up any more. The bottom bar is no longer touching the back of the case also, like it was before, when fully retracted. There is now a small gap between the bar and the back, as I think there should be. When it was bowed in before Saturday, you could see that gap starting at one end of the case, dissipating quickly until the bar and the back were touching for most of the length of the bar, and then the gap re-appeared at the other end of the case. Now it's a nice even gap the entire length of the case This was very tricky because the case isn't hanging on the wall, it's suspended below an acoustical ceiling. And I also have it supported on the top rail, so it's a double-installation. Anyways, It think it's all set and now I can sleep at night. 

How long is the factory warranty anyways? I couldn't find it on your website.

Thanks as always for your help.

Jay


----------



## chriscmore

surroundsound99 said:


> Good news, I spent about 10 hours on Saturday re-building the back support structure and I think it's not going to be a problem now.
> 
> How long is the factory warranty anyways? I couldn't find it on your website.
> 
> Thanks as always for your help.
> 
> Jay


Good to hear. The warranty is two years. Seymour AV | About Seymour AV 

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## mv038856

Hi Chris,

I have a question regarding a „sidegrade“ for my C130 screen. I currently have the CenterStage XD screen material and I chose it for the robustness and the 1.0 „real gain“, as my good old JVC DLA-RS50/X7 projectors aren‘t exactly light cannons.
I am considering a sidegrade to the UF screen material, but am wondering what this would mean for the brightness and if the UF might be less robust than the XD. Or is there an upgraded UF material with a „real“ 1.0 gain in sight, comparable to the XD? Even when moving to a brighter 4K projector I would want to keep my two legacy JVCs for passive 1080p 3D projection and there brightness is an important factor for the viewing experience. I already use the max. zoom on the projectors and ISCO IIIL lenses to maximize brightness on the C130XD.
Looking forward to your response!

Markus


----------



## chriscmore

mv038856 said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> I have a question regarding a „sidegrade“ for my C130 screen. I currently have the CenterStage XD screen material and I chose it for the robustness and the 1.0 „real gain“, as my good old JVC DLA-RS50/X7 projectors aren‘t exactly light cannons.
> I am considering a sidegrade to the UF screen material, but am wondering what this would mean for the brightness and if the UF might be less robust than the XD. Or is there an upgraded UF material with a „real“ 1.0 gain in sight, comparable to the XD? Even when moving to a brighter 4K projector I would want to keep my two legacy JVCs for passive 1080p 3D projection and there brightness is an important factor for the viewing experience. I already use the max. zoom on the projectors and ISCO IIIL lenses to maximize brightness on the C130XD.
> Looking forward to your response!
> 
> Markus


Hi Markus -

The current UHD projectors from JVC will 3D well, and their increase in brightness will help as well. Regardless, if it were me, I'd wait until it's projector upgrade time and then "sidegrade" to the UF assuming you're looking for a closer viewing distance than the XD is designed for. The XD is more robust when it comes to spot treatment, as you can scrub it with about anything. The UF can be machine washed though, so I wouldn't call it less robust necessarily.

The XD is the highest gain possible in a woven material. We increased the reflective additives until sparkling occurred and then dialed it back down to perfect uniformity.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## nathan_h

What’s the best way to clean the EN4K material?


----------



## chriscmore

nathan_h said:


> What’s the best way to clean the EN4K material?


It can also be machine washed. Spot treating is more tricky, but if that seems the appropriate first course to take, email us for details.

Chris


----------



## mv038856

chriscmore said:


> Hi Markus -
> 
> The current UHD projectors from JVC will 3D well, and their increase in brightness will help as well. Regardless, if it were me, I'd wait until it's projector upgrade time and then "sidegrade" to the UF assuming you're looking for a closer viewing distance than the XD is designed for. The XD is more robust when it comes to spot treatment, as you can scrub it with about anything. The UF can be machine washed though, so I wouldn't call it less robust necessarily.
> 
> The XD is the highest gain possible in a woven material. We increased the reflective additives until sparkling occurred and then dialed it back down to perfect uniformity.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hi Chris,

thanks for the info!
I will wait with a sidegrade until a new projector is due, but since I like passive 3D projection, I would mount the new 4K projector in addition to my legacy JVCs. I wouldn‘t want to invest in a second 4K projector for 3D again, but rather use the equipment that I already own for that purpose. The 3 projectors, however, would have to time share the screen and for 3D and the legacy JVCs a like-XD-gain screen would be preferred. 😉
Cheers!

Markus


----------



## ari821

Hi all,

I m planning to purchase the Seymour xd retractable 131.9”. 

I am curious to know :
1) Do I need tilted cut or moire is not a problem with regular cut 
2) what is the real world gain for the xd screen , given I am planning to pair a jvc nx5 projector with it ( throw distance between 14-15ft). Would this screen be too dim for hdr and 3d.
My seating distance :1st row 12’ and second row 19’.
ceiling height :8’ 

The room wall and ceiling will be painted dark( no black velvet ) and blackout curtains will be placed over window(aiming low-medium ambient light)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thrillcat

ari821 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I m planning to purchase the Seymour xd retractable 131.9”.
> 
> I am curious to know :
> 1) Do I need tilted cut or moire is not a problem with regular cut
> 2) what is the real world gain for the xd screen , given I am planning to pair a jvc nx5 projector with it ( throw distance between 14-15ft). Would this screen be too dim for hdr and 3d.
> My seating distance :1st row 12’ and second row 19’.
> ceiling height :8’
> 
> The room wall and ceiling will be painted dark( no black velvet ) and blackout curtains will be placed over window(aiming low-medium ambient light)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you call in, Seymour is also a JVC dealer so he probably has real-world data for you on that. And if you haven’t already bought your projector, they can professionally calibrate it on your screen at your defined throw distance prior to shipping.


----------



## ken7258

I have a JVC RS2000. Wanted an ALR screen that is AT. Does either the Center Stage XD or UF do ALF. Trying to decide what is more important, ALR or AT. Almost seems like doing an AT screen would hurt the picture and sound. You'd have speakers behind the screen and the screen would be not as sharp as a SI Slate 1.2 gain. Could someone tell me if an AT screen is sharp enough for my 4K JVC RS2000 and won't soften the image. Thanks


----------



## nathan_h

Yes a woven screen is sharp enough for 4k, and the bonus is that it lets you place the speakers where they should go for optimum sound.

Before buying a screen for a couple or three or four thousand dollars, get screen samples of everything you are considering and look at them in your room with your projector with the lights off so you understand and see exactly what you will be getting. Just like test driving a car.


----------



## ari821

thrillcat said:


> If you call in, Seymour is also a JVC dealer so he probably has real-world data for you on that. And if you haven’t already bought your projector, they can professionally calibrate it on your screen at your defined throw distance prior to shipping.


Thanks!

I did see some responses from Chris in this channel. Hence, thought of posting my question here. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ellebob

HT is about trade offs. I work in this industry and where I work we mostly do projectors both commercial and residential. IMHO for picture quality nothing beats a good solid non-AT screen although the Screen Excellence NEO is VERY close. And it just kind of makes sense. When some of the projectors output is going through the screen and not being reflected you are losing some picture quality even if it is a small fraction.

That being said audio quality with a solid non-AT material suffers quite a bit. I have 2 projectors systems in my home (about to be 3) one AT and one non-AT. The non-AT screen I have tried putting the speakers above the screen, below the screen and at ear height with raising the screen higher. Now if I had was multiple rows I would go above the screen without a doubt so everybody has clear line of sight of speakers. However I only have one row in this room. When the speakers were at ear height the sound was great but I didn't like the screen that high as the top if was right at my ceiling. I settled on below the screen with speakers about 2 feet off the floor angled up.

Now, go into the other theater room with the AT screen and everything is just right. While if I put the two screens side by side the non-AT screen would win. But nobody every really sees that and are still blown away by the picture. IMHO the tradeoff for better sound is worth the very slight decrease in picture quality. The RS2000 is a great projectors and you are not going to be losing anything by using an AT screen.

As far as ALR screens. That could be necessary if you do not have good viewing conditions and dealing with ambient light. In that scenario taking a tradeoff on audio by not having your speakers behind the screen is most likely worth it. You can get an AT perforated screen that is ALR but they tend to be in a different price category than the Seymour screens you are considering.

Ps. For those that want to know what my third projector is going to be. I am replacing a flat screen with a short throw projector in my family room. I'm sure the short throw won't be as good as a nice new OLED but having 100+ inches might give a big wow factor. I am going to try it and see how I like it and what other people say about it.


----------



## thrillcat

ari821 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I did see some responses from Chris in this channel. Hence, thought of posting my question here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


He follows the channel, but it’s often much faster to call.


----------



## chriscmore

ari821 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I m planning to purchase the Seymour xd retractable 131.9”.
> 
> I am curious to know :
> 1) Do I need tilted cut or moire is not a problem with regular cut
> 2) what is the real world gain for the xd screen , given I am planning to pair a jvc nx5 projector with it ( throw distance between 14-15ft). Would this screen be too dim for hdr and 3d.
> My seating distance :1st row 12’ and second row 19’.
> ceiling height :8’
> 
> The room wall and ceiling will be painted dark( no black velvet ) and blackout curtains will be placed over window(aiming low-medium ambient light)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sorry for the delay. It seems that AVS notifications are kind of inconsistent, and compounded with my natural cat-like distractions, it's sparse.

1) We don't do the tilted cut with retractables because we need the threads to be level for everything to hang flat. Only the smaller sizes tend to be an issue with non-tilted XD, but the UF was designed for those smaller screens and closer viewing distances.
2) Per the specs table on the screens page, when benchmarked against the lying weasels that are screen companies we'd rate it at 1.2. If only Stewart existed we wouldn't need a benchmarked score, and could then go with its unbenchmarked 1.0 rating.

Based on my more recent calibrations of NX5s, on your size XD screen you'd hit 23.8 FtL in HDR and 15.7 FtL in SDR, assuming you keep your bulb low. If you're a brightness junkie, there are several things I can do to calibrate it hotter. If you're a black level junkie, then those brightness values are what would be considered "best picture." I think those values are good. SDR guidelines are unchanged, and the average picture level in HDR is also the same, so that extra headroom is just for highlights.

I love 3D but honestly haven't done jack with it for quite a while. There are hotter presets that can be used and for 3D it opens up pretty well. Also the JVC glasses are more light efficient.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Ellebob said:


> HT is about trade offs. I work in this industry and where I work we mostly do projectors both commercial and residential. IMHO for picture quality nothing beats a good solid non-AT screen although the Screen Excellence NEO is VERY close. And it just kind of makes sense. When some of the projectors output is going through the screen and not being reflected you are losing some picture quality even if it is a small fraction.
> 
> That being said audio quality with a solid non-AT material suffers quite a bit. I have 2 projectors systems in my home (about to be 3) one AT and one non-AT. The non-AT screen I have tried putting the speakers above the screen, below the screen and at ear height with raising the screen higher. Now if I had was multiple rows I would go above the screen without a doubt so everybody has clear line of sight of speakers. However I only have one row in this room. When the speakers were at ear height the sound was great but I didn't like the screen that high as the top if was right at my ceiling. I settled on below the screen with speakers about 2 feet off the floor angled up.
> 
> Now, go into the other theater room with the AT screen and everything is just right. While if I put the two screens side by side the non-AT screen would win. But nobody every really sees that and are still blown away by the picture. IMHO the tradeoff for better sound is worth the very slight decrease in picture quality. The RS2000 is a great projectors and you are not going to be losing anything by using an AT screen.
> 
> As far as ALR screens. That could be necessary if you do not have good viewing conditions and dealing with ambient light. In that scenario taking a tradeoff on audio by not having your speakers behind the screen is most likely worth it. You can get an AT perforated screen that is ALR but they tend to be in a different price category than the Seymour screens you are considering.
> 
> Ps. For those that want to know what my third projector is going to be. I am replacing a flat screen with a short throw projector in my family room. I'm sure the short throw won't be as good as a nice new OLED but having 100+ inches might give a big wow factor. I am going to try it and see how I like it and what other people say about it.


For AT screens that have through-holes, you do lose picture information, but I'd argue that because the Enlightor-Neo and Center Stage UF materials don't have such holes you don't. To whatever degree they have translucence, then it's simply amplitude that's affected, just like a gain rating. The entire pixel is reflected off the picture, so no "quality" is lost. Amplitude or gain isn't necessarily "quality," as it can be a good thing or not depending on the configuration. For example, in Doug Blackburn's WSR review of the Sim2 Nero, he needed the lower gain of the Enlightor-Neo instead of his normal solid screen to put the image where it needed to be. In that case his quality went up with the AT screen.

But you know all about the holistic benefits to a AT configuration. 

We have a microperforated version of the Matinee Wide that will be made available any day now. As much as I hate perf screens (and ALR for that matter), it's been performing well for us.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## ken7258

Ellebob said:


> HT is about trade offs. I work in this industry and where I work we mostly do projectors both commercial and residential. IMHO for picture quality nothing beats a good solid non-AT screen although the Screen Excellence NEO is VERY close. And it just kind of makes sense. When some of the projectors output is going through the screen and not being reflected you are losing some picture quality even if it is a small fraction.
> 
> That being said audio quality with a solid non-AT material suffers quite a bit. I have 2 projectors systems in my home (about to be 3) one AT and one non-AT. The non-AT screen I have tried putting the speakers above the screen, below the screen and at ear height with raising the screen higher. Now if I had was multiple rows I would go above the screen without a doubt so everybody has clear line of sight of speakers. However I only have one row in this room. When the speakers were at ear height the sound was great but I didn't like the screen that high as the top if was right at my ceiling. I settled on below the screen with speakers about 2 feet off the floor angled up.
> 
> Now, go into the other theater room with the AT screen and everything is just right. While if I put the two screens side by side the non-AT screen would win. But nobody every really sees that and are still blown away by the picture. IMHO the tradeoff for better sound is worth the very slight decrease in picture quality. The RS2000 is a great projectors and you are not going to be losing anything by using an AT screen.
> 
> As far as ALR screens. That could be necessary if you do not have good viewing conditions and dealing with ambient light. In that scenario taking a tradeoff on audio by not having your speakers behind the screen is most likely worth it. You can get an AT perforated screen that is ALR but they tend to be in a different price category than the Seymour screens you are considering.
> 
> Ps. For those that want to know what my third projector is going to be. I am replacing a flat screen with a short throw projector in my family room. I'm sure the short throw won't be as good as a nice new OLED but having 100+ inches might give a big wow factor. I am going to try it and see how I like it and what other people say about it.


Thanks Elle, I have Def Tech 2002 speakers that are bi-polar. The L&R speakers have a matched set of rear firing speakers. I wonder how those will sound behind a AT screen. SI has their 1.2 gain Slate microperf screen, but i bet it's not cheap. Have you heard or seen anything about Dreamscreen V7. Thanks


----------



## chriscmore

ken7258 said:


> Thanks Elle, I have Def Tech 2002 speakers that are bi-polar. The L&R speakers have a matched set of rear firing speakers. I wonder how those will sound behind a AT screen. SI has their 1.2 gain Slate microperf screen, but i bet it's not cheap. Have you heard or seen anything about Dreamscreen V7. Thanks


Set up your front soundstage to sound best as if there were no screen, and then once you place an Enlightor-Neo in front you'll have a tonally flat -1.5dB attenuation or if you get the Center Stage UF then it's -2.2dB. That's the holistic benefit when the audio and video aren't allergic to each other.

The Matinee Black microperf, like others, will trade off more audio for its ALR benefits.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## ken7258

What's the difference between Enlightor-Neo and Center Stage UF? I can never find them on the same website. Is one a newer material, brighter, better sounding, better picture, more contrast, ambient light rejecting, etc.

How can I get a sample of XD, UF and Neo. Thanks for the help


----------



## chriscmore

ken7258 said:


> What's the difference between Enlightor-Neo and Center Stage UF? I can never find them on the same website. Is one a newer material, brighter, better sounding, better picture, more contrast, ambient light rejecting, etc.
> 
> How can I get a sample of XD, UF and Neo. Thanks for the help


Qualitatively I like to think of the Enlightor-Neo as being twice as fine as Center Stage UF. They have the same gain, since they're uncoated threads and the only way you increase gain with threads like that is detail-blurring layer stacking, which is never recommended. Thankfully I've gotten the DIY builders to stop that nonsense. The minimum seating distance for the Neo is zero, and the UF is about six feet. The acoustical attenuation for the Neo is an industry-leading 1.5dB and the UF is 2.2dB. You can request samples of any of the materials on our website.

Commercially, the Neo is available through Seymour-Screen Excellence dealers and installers. This "CEDIA" brand is where we put our most sophisticated product designs and materials. It's not intended to be DIY and scales to where with our largest masking system (ART), you'll get me in your room building it.

The Center Stage UF is available through the consumer-direct, DIY-friendly Seymour AV brand. You can add to cart, and attach it into a DIY frame with a staple gun, for example.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## uscmatt99

chriscmore said:


> For AT screens that have through-holes, you do lose picture information, but I'd argue that because the Enlightor-Neo and Center Stage UF materials don't have such holes you don't. To whatever degree they have translucence, then it's simply amplitude that's affected, just like a gain rating. The entire pixel is reflected off the picture, so no "quality" is lost. Amplitude or gain isn't necessarily "quality," as it can be a good thing or not depending on the configuration. For example, in Doug Blackburn's WSR review of the Sim2 Nero, he needed the lower gain of the Enlightor-Neo instead of his normal solid screen to put the image where it needed to be. In that case his quality went up with the AT screen.
> 
> But you know all about the holistic benefits to a AT configuration.
> 
> We have a microperforated version of the Matinee Wide that will be made available any day now. As much as I hate perf screens (and ALR for that matter), it's been performing well for us.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris,

Satisfied customer here for the last 10 years of enjoyment of my Enlightor 4K screen in my dedicated theater. We will be moving later this year to a home with a basement area that will become my theater room, but will not be ideal for projection as set up. Light colored walls, white ceiling, small windows for which I can at least get black-out shades. I was looking into ALR microperf screens and there are few options, so I'm delighted to hear that you'll be releasing a perf'd version of the Matinee Wide. Do you have any spec's recommendations regarding dB attenuation, gain and minimal viewing distances for this material? At this point I'm thinking 120" wide 2.35:1 and a seating distance of around 12 feet for our room. We could probably do 130" wide screen and move back a couple feet if needed.


----------



## ari821

chriscmore said:


> Sorry for the delay. It seems that AVS notifications are kind of inconsistent, and compounded with my natural cat-like distractions, it's sparse.
> 
> 1) We don't do the tilted cut with retractables because we need the threads to be level for everything to hang flat. Only the smaller sizes tend to be an issue with non-tilted XD, but the UF was designed for those smaller screens and closer viewing distances.
> 2) Per the specs table on the screens page, when benchmarked against the lying weasels that are screen companies we'd rate it at 1.2. If only Stewart existed we wouldn't need a benchmarked score, and could then go with its unbenchmarked 1.0 rating.
> 
> Based on my more recent calibrations of NX5s, on your size XD screen you'd hit 23.8 FtL in HDR and 15.7 FtL in SDR, assuming you keep your bulb low. If you're a brightness junkie, there are several things I can do to calibrate it hotter. If you're a black level junkie, then those brightness values are what would be considered "best picture." I think those values are good. SDR guidelines are unchanged, and the average picture level in HDR is also the same, so that extra headroom is just for highlights.
> 
> I love 3D but honestly haven't done jack with it for quite a while. There are hotter presets that can be used and for 3D it opens up pretty well. Also the JVC glasses are more light efficient.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris for the info!

Is the 23.8 FL for hdr taking into account the throw distance that I mentioned (14.5-15 ft) for the projector.Does the distance matter?

I do incline more towards better black than brightness and hence was looking for the jvc nx5. However, I am little concerned as my room won’t be a perfect dark room. I just plan to paint the walls dark color (and no black velvet). I would target medium ambient light.

Do you think 23.8 FL (81.54 nits ) sufficient for hdr ? Crawling through some other channels I saw 100 nits was recommended for hdr. Do you think the DTM of jvc would help ?

In addition are there any products equivalent to the xd ( higher gain) available through Seymour screen excellence that might have better gain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nathan_h

ari821 said:


> I would target medium ambient light.


What does this mean? 

If you want to have lights on in the room, you may not benefit very much from the great black levels of the JVC since the ambient light will make the blacks grey.


----------



## dschulz

Perusing various screen options, I came across a UK outfit with a desirable feature I've not seen before: in addition to adjustable masking, an additional mask for aesthetics / screen protection. Pictured here is a Scope screen with the mask in place and the side masking opened up to 2.39. I assume (though I'm not sure) that the art mask retracts top to bottom. 

Would there be a way to do such a thing with the Seymour Proscenium system?


----------



## ari821

nathan_h said:


> What does this mean?
> 
> If you want to have lights on in the room, you may not benefit very much from the great black levels of the JVC since the ambient light will make the blacks grey.


Sorry if I was not clear. 
I will not have lights on during projection.

I meant that getting those perfect black rooms with black velvet,etc is not possible for me.

Instead I will just paint the walls and ceiling dark colors( probably gray- yet to decide).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nathan_h

ari821 said:


> Sorry if I was not clear.
> I will not have lights on during projection.
> 
> I meant that getting those perfect black rooms with black velvet,etc is not possible for me.
> 
> Instead I will just paint the walls and ceiling dark colors( probably gray- yet to decide).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Then a nice white screen will be ideal and you will get great performance from your projector! Cool.


----------



## mtbdudex

uscmatt99 said:


> At this point I'm thinking 120" wide 2.35:1 and a seating distance of around 12 feet for our room. We could probably do 130" wide screen and move back a couple feet if needed.


Screen visual immersion is a personal preference ... this is a 10 foot / 120” wide / 130” diag scope screen.
First row 10’6” eyes to screen at center, love it 
Second row 16” 6” eyes to screen still ok, but visual immersion is less

Which leads into where to put the R and L mains 











Forming an acoustic equilateral triangle typically pushes then R and L mains outside the screen .. then you either aim them or over toe them to MLP per below 



















I’ve held big gtg’s and individual 1:1 with fellow HT enthusiasts at my home.

Quite a few moved their R and L mains from behind their AT screen to flanking it .. 


Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## uscmatt99

mtbdudex said:


> Screen visual immersion is a personal preference ... this is a 10 foot / 120” wide / 130” diag scope screen.
> First row 10’6” eyes to screen at center, love it
> Second row 16” 6” eyes to screen still ok, but visual immersion is less
> 
> Which leads into where to put the R and L mains
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forming an acoustic equilateral triangle typically pushes then R and L mains outside the screen .. then you either aim them or over toe them to MLP per below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve held big gtg’s and individual 1:1 with fellow HT enthusiasts at my home.
> 
> Quite a few moved their R and L mains from behind their AT screen to flanking it ..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


Thanks for the detailed reply!

Part of the deal for this room will be all in-wall and in-ceiling speakers, aiming for 5.1.4 based on the room layout which really isn’t conducive to rear bed level in-wall speakers unless it’s got a directed horn like the JBL synthesis SCL-7. I’m going to tape it all out once we’ve moved. For our current theater I had everything built out based on drawings during the construction phase. 

I think my approach this time will be to place the MLP, then sort out the balance of ideal screen size and speaker placement for the LCR. We currently have our 120” wide scope screen at 8’ from the front row MLP and 14’ from the back row. Over time, we’ve agreed that 8’ is too close for us at 120”, but 14‘ is a bit too far. So I settled on 10-12’. We’ll only have one row of couch seating, and may end up doing a little bar height counter with stools behind it. 

I’m guessing that the speaker placement (dictated in part by stud spacing) will subsequently give a couple of ideal screen sizes, one with speakers flanking the screen, one with a bigger screen covering all 3 speakers. I’m trying to limit my choices to wide dispersion, great off-axis speakers for this application. Not many of those that also maintain high sensitivity, 3-way design, etc. I’m also not sure how the L and R will interact with a perf’d screen vs. a woven screen and how far out I’d need to bump the screen if perf’d. Will be a fun project nonetheless.


----------



## chriscmore

uscmatt99 said:


> Chris,
> 
> Satisfied customer here for the last 10 years of enjoyment of my Enlightor 4K screen in my dedicated theater. We will be moving later this year to a home with a basement area that will become my theater room, but will not be ideal for projection as set up. Light colored walls, white ceiling, small windows for which I can at least get black-out shades. I was looking into ALR microperf screens and there are few options, so I'm delighted to hear that you'll be releasing a perf'd version of the Matinee Wide. Do you have any spec's recommendations regarding dB attenuation, gain and minimal viewing distances for this material? At this point I'm thinking 120" wide 2.35:1 and a seating distance of around 12 feet for our room. We could probably do 130" wide screen and move back a couple feet if needed.


Hi Matt -

Viewing distance of the new Matinee Wide MP is about 12', so I think you're good within your adjustment range. It is a pretty low gain of 0.8 so you'd want to have plenty of light power for it. Maybe for a scope screen consider an anamorphic lens, otherwise the zoom method might be spreading the image thin.

Average attenuation is looking like -3dB.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

ari821 said:


> Thanks Chris for the info!
> 
> Is the 23.8 FL for hdr taking into account the throw distance that I mentioned (14.5-15 ft) for the projector.Does the distance matter?
> 
> I do incline more towards better black than brightness and hence was looking for the jvc nx5. However, I am little concerned as my room won’t be a perfect dark room. I just plan to paint the walls dark color (and no black velvet). I would target medium ambient light.
> 
> Do you think 23.8 FL (81.54 nits ) sufficient for hdr ? Crawling through some other channels I saw 100 nits was recommended for hdr. Do you think the DTM of jvc would help ?
> 
> In addition are there any products equivalent to the xd ( higher gain) available through Seymour screen excellence that might have better gain.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I wouldn't be concerned between 81 nits and the Dolby Cinema 100 nit goal. It's just a couple clicks of illumination, and just on specular highlights which are sometimes annoying anyway. The eye's response is non-linear, so it's not that big a deal. I think the goals are just directionally correct and like peak headroom for speakers, indicate good practice.

We may microperf the higher gain Matinee materials, but I hesitate for a lot of personal preference reasons.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## brazensol

The Center Stage UF screen is listed as 1.0/0.8 and the Center Stage XD is listed as 1.2/1.0. What, exactly, do those numbers mean? What are the actual gains?


----------



## mv038856

brazensol said:


> The Center Stage UF screen is listed as 1.0/0.8 and the Center Stage XD is listed as 1.2/1.0. What, exactly, do those numbers mean? What are the actual gains?


When it comes to gain, many if not all manufacturers are advertising higher gain figures than the materials actually have. 
The true gain value of the XD is 1.0 and 0.8 for the UF. To compare it to gain values published by competitors, the „benchmarked gain“ of 1.2 for the XD and 1.0 for the UF should be taken into account.
So Seymour AV wants to be honest about the gain of their materials but also does not want to look worse than the competition...


----------



## mtbdudex

Here read this 










https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf


Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## nathan_h

Yes, that is a good test report.

In short, Seymour gives you a real gain number AND they give you a generous gain number that corresponds to how other manufacturers "lie" about their gain....so you can compare them with the numbers that other brands claim.


----------



## newoski

Working on a screen for a small room. I'd love to go with the Premier to catch as much light as possible, but the I'd be giving up too much screen size. The Metro looks great, but I want a bit more frame to catch light. Obviously then, the Precision seems to be the sweet spot between all three, however, looking at the price point it is also the cheapest. If I'm choosing between the Metro and the Precision, do I get any performance benefit from the Metro... or is it just classier looking with the thinner velvet frame?


----------



## chriscmore

newoski said:


> Working on a screen for a small room. I'd love to go with the Premier to catch as much light as possible, but the I'd be giving up too much screen size. The Metro looks great, but I want a bit more frame to catch light. Obviously then, the Precision seems to be the sweet spot between all three, however, looking at the price point it is also the cheapest. If I'm choosing between the Metro and the Precision, do I get any performance benefit from the Metro... or is it just classier looking with the thinner velvet frame?


The screen materials remain the same, so there aren't any performance differences to the image of the different frames. There are limitations to the sizes, since the Precision is the least amount of metal. (The Metro is actually a double frame and has the most metal and cost). Also the Precision is limited in its options, such as not having any spacing for magnetic masking panels.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## JeffG02

Hey Chris! I'm getting ready to pull the trigger (actually wasn't quite ready but looks like price increase is coming 5/1, so that's moving up my timeline) just wanted to cross check what I'm thinking.

Room is fully light controlled (windows present, but will have blackout shades...however 95% of content is watched at night anyways) but we _will_ watch with some _very_ dimly lit lights on for seeing dinner/drinks during some times, but not aimed at the screen. Will have Triad Gold LCR behind the screen. The L & R will be outside of the screen just barely, toed in. I'm thinking the Center Stage XD 16:9 120"w, paired w/ a JVCNX5 (already purchased) at a 16'4" throw. I definitely want the masking panels, so that limits me to the Premier vs the Precision. 

Also, on the masking panels, I'm not sure if my center channel will be at a height where the masking panels won't cover it up, I assume I should go with the AT masking panels? Even if they don't cover up the center channel, they would still be in front of the subs, but wasn't sure how important AT vs non-AT would be in front of the subs.










Thanks!!


----------



## chriscmore

JeffG02 said:


> Hey Chris! I'm getting ready to pull the trigger (actually wasn't quite ready but looks like price increase is coming 5/1, so that's moving up my timeline) just wanted to cross check what I'm thinking.
> 
> Room is fully light controlled (windows present, but will have blackout shades...however 95% of content is watched at night anyways) but we _will_ watch with some _very_ dimly lit lights on for seeing dinner/drinks during some times, but not aimed at the screen. Will have Triad Gold LCR behind the screen. The L & R will be outside of the screen just barely, toed in. I'm thinking the Center Stage XD 16:9 120"w, paired w/ a JVCNX5 (already purchased) at a 16'4" throw. I definitely want the masking panels, so that limits me to the Premier vs the Precision.
> 
> Also, on the masking panels, I'm not sure if my center channel will be at a height where the masking panels won't cover it up, I assume I should go with the AT masking panels? Even if they don't cover up the center channel, they would still be in front of the subs, but wasn't sure how important AT vs non-AT would be in front of the subs.
> 
> View attachment 3123382
> 
> 
> Thanks!!


I'd go with the AT masking panels. They'll be 10" tall each, so try and elevate the center to balance between being on-axis with the LR, at a good sonic height, but higher the better to dodge the panel's frame. The subs won't care either way, but in looking at your sketchup I might want the speakers a few inches higher. Also, while it's more obnoxious in size, we could make a continuous panel which would eliminate the vertical frame members in the center seam. Our standard is to split the top/bottom into four panels, because I'd maim someone with a 10' piece of anything, but a few people have preferred a two-panel system.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## JeffG02

chriscmore said:


> I'd go with the AT masking panels. They'll be 10" tall each, so try and elevate the center to balance between being on-axis with the LR, at a good sonic height, but higher the better to dodge the panel's frame. The subs won't care either way, but in looking at your sketchup I might want the speakers a few inches higher. Also, while it's more obnoxious in size, we could make a continuous panel which would eliminate the vertical frame members in the center seam. Our standard is to split the top/bottom into four panels, because I'd maim someone with a 10' piece of anything, but a few people have preferred a two-panel system.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks so much Chris. Like you, I have no clue where I'd actually be able to store 2 10' pieces, so I'd stick with the default. When you say eliminate the vertical frame between the two pieces, I'm assuming from an acoustic standpoint, and not a visual standpoint (i.e. Being able to see a seam while watching a movie).

The 5' sections seems perfect and so much easier to store when not in use.


----------



## chriscmore

JeffG02 said:


> Thanks so much Chris. Like you, I have no clue where I'd actually be able to store 2 10" pieces, so I'd stick with the default. When you say eliminate the vertical frame between the two pieces, I'm assuming from an acoustic standpoint, and not a visual standpoint (i.e. Being able to see a seam while watching a movie).
> 
> The 5' sections seems perfect and so much easier to store when not in use.


Yeah, acoustically the vertical frames on each side of the lower pair would create a 1.25" x 2 = 2.5" wide vertical strip of not-very-acoustic aluminum. The lower frequencies of woofers won't be affected but getting that center's woofer up as much out of the way would be a good goal.



http://www.seymourav.com/images/CenterStageCWPanels350.jpg



Cheers,
Chris


----------



## ari821

Hi all,

I had a chance to view the center stage xd sample (thanks to Seymour) and another SI slate AT 1.2 screen with a jvc nx5 in a Best Buy magnolia center. When I was holding the sample with hand I noticed the SI very sharp compared to the XD. I could literally see the letters with clear edges on the SI and slightly smudged with the xd. The difference was not noticeable at 12’ distance where my primary seating would be. The SI was perforated and obviously I could see the holes from that close distance.

I just want to know if the xd is 4K compatible screen as I am planning to purchase the xd and jvc nx5 combination . 
Actually at 12’ distance I hardly noticed any difference for sharpness between the two screens but am just curious before I pull the trigger for the xd


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nathan_h

Trust your eyes. Many people use that combo and like it but no one's opinion is better than your own eyes. And its good you taking into account seating distance. As you noted, up close you see things that you would not worry about at a distance: holes, slight softening, etc.

But ALSO *trust your ears*. The XD is likely to be far more neutral and easy to work with from an audio standpoint. A woven screen tends to have pretty linear attenuation and allow you to have you speakers right up next to the screen. A perforate screen tends to have more complex and challenging impact on the audio, greater loss of volume, and require as much as a foot of distance between screen and speakers. But a perforated screen gives you the option of higher gain screen material, if you want or need that.

One report about acoustic materials that is useful is from AccuCal. Here is an excerpt. You can find the whole thing on their web site.


----------



## chriscmore

ari821 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I had a chance to view the center stage xd sample (thanks to Seymour) and another SI slate AT 1.2 screen with a jvc nx5 in a Best Buy magnolia center. When I was holding the sample with hand I noticed the SI very sharp compared to the XD. I could literally see the letters with clear edges on the SI and slightly smudged with the xd. The difference was not noticeable at 12’ distance where my primary seating would be. The SI was perforated and obviously I could see the holes from that close distance.
> 
> I just want to know if the xd is 4K compatible screen as I am planning to purchase the xd and jvc nx5 combination .
> Actually at 12’ distance I hardly noticed any difference for sharpness between the two screens but am just curious before I pull the trigger for the xd
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because the Center Stage XD's holes are about 1/10 the size of the microperfs, it doesn't lose information. You get every pixel, versus microperf screens delete appx 200 pixels per square inch. I find it's more visible on panning of people's hair. Technically, microperf screens are resolution limited and I wouldn't consider them 4K compatible based on the feature size versus pixel sizes.

Inter-pixel structures (edges of pixels, interpixel gaps, DLP dimples, etc) that are visible at arms length but not at viewing distance will look different on woven versus planar materials, but since it doesn't affect viewing distance I don't see how it can be an issue. Perhaps woven versus planar can have an analogy in the audio realm of analog versus digital. If I were working on spreadsheets, I'd use a non-AT film material.

Acoustic performance is far superior in woven, too. So contrary to an article by John Bishop in WSR, woven screens are by far the least compromising technology for a lot of reasons.

Now if you need the ALR feature of the slate, then that'd be a reason to vote for that. Or if you're looking for a wider-angle, lower-gain (0.8) material, we now have a microperf (groan) version of the Matinee Black.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## ari821

chriscmore said:


> Because the Center Stage XD's holes are about 1/10 the size of the microperfs, it doesn't lose information. You get every pixel, versus microperf screens delete appx 200 pixels per square inch. I find it's more visible on panning of people's hair. Technically, microperf screens are resolution limited and I wouldn't consider them 4K compatible based on the feature size versus pixel sizes.
> 
> Inter-pixel structures (edges of pixels, interpixel gaps, DLP dimples, etc) that are visible at arms length but not at viewing distance will look different on woven versus planar materials, but since it doesn't affect viewing distance I don't see how it can be an issue. Perhaps woven versus planar can have an analogy in the audio realm of analog versus digital. If I were working on spreadsheets, I'd use a non-AT film material.
> 
> Acoustic performance is far superior in woven, too. So contrary to an article by John Bishop in WSR, woven screens are by far the least compromising technology for a lot of reasons.
> 
> Now if you need the ALR feature of the slate, then that'd be a reason to vote for that. Or if you're looking for a wider-angle, lower-gain (0.8) material, we now have a microperf (groan) version of the Matinee Black.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks @chriscmore!

One more thing if I may ask, do you think that reducing the screen size from 131.9” to 126.2” 16:9 will make significant increase to brightness. I don’t want to scale down but if that has significant difference I may consider the option.

Just to recap , you had mentioned earlier for the 131.9” XD with 15ft throw and nx5 the brightness will be around 23.8 FL post calibration


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nathan_h

You can compare relative brightness of different screen sizes using the projector central calculator. Keep in mind their absolute numbers assume high lamp mode. Enter .95 gain in their calc to approximate XD by their metric. And pay attention to throw distance which can alter light on the screen by nearly thirty percent.


----------



## ari821

nathan_h said:


> You can compare relative brightness of different screen sizes using the projector central calculator. Keep in mind their absolute numbers assume high lamp mode. Enter .95 gain in their calc to approximate XD by their metric. And pay attention to throw distance which can alter light on the screen by nearly thirty percent.


Thanks Nathan! 

I did see the Projector central calculator and found couple FL more for the 126.2 “. However, I am not sure how much does that translate to in real viewing experience. 

I did see a review in another channel and even in YouTube by youthman where he reviewed a HT with nx7 paired with 163” diagonal 2.35:1 with Seymour xd at around 25+ ft throw distance. If I use projector central calculation for that setup I just get 16 FL. This is way less than what I expect for 131.9” 16:9 screen.

Hence , wanted to know if I am unnecessarily getting fussy with the brightness and don’t want to end up with a smaller screen when I could have had a bigger one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ellebob

In my experience 16 fl was fine years ago before HDR but now even with the JVCs tone mapping it loses come punch. Some definitely trade off immersion for bright, punchy picture. A few FL is not going to be a big difference but 10FL is definitely noticeable. Here are some things to keep in mind.

1. Ambient light. If watching with light you want more FL If watching in dark you can get away with less. Personally, I wouldn't go 16 and would want AT LEAST 20 figuring for other aspects below. With ambient light these numbers go up but ALR screens can help.

2. Bulbs age and take their biggest drop in the first few hundred hours. Depending on model about 10-25%. Get some reviews of lumens in a mode with good picture quality and reduce that number by 15-20%. Use that for your calculations so that you have good picture quality for a while. Too many people say their projector puts out X lumens but in reality doesn't come near that in a good picture quality mode. The JVC is not far off its rated lumens but still not at it in its best mode.

3. Replace bulbs early probably near half their rated lifespan. Remember their rating is usually until half brightness which is very noticeable. This is tough with JVC because their bulbs are pricier but still worth it.

4. Where you are calculating lumens the zoom range matters and should also be calculated. Some projectors there is a 40% difference between the closest and furthest position. JVC is not that high but still worth checking. Placing projector closer is brighter but placing it further has better contrast and uniformity. Don't worry about this too much but do calculate for it especially if near furthest placement.


----------



## nathan_h

@Ellebob 


ari821 said:


> Thanks Nathan!
> 
> I did see the Projector central calculator and found couple FL more for the 126.2 “. However, I am not sure how much does that translate to in real viewing experience.
> 
> I did see a review in another channel and even in YouTube by youthman where he reviewed a HT with nx7 paired with 163” diagonal 2.35:1 with Seymour xd at around 25+ ft throw distance. If I use projector central calculation for that setup I just get 16 FL. This is way less than what I expect for 131.9” 16:9 screen.
> 
> Hence , wanted to know if I am unnecessarily getting fussy with the brightness and don’t want to end up with a smaller screen when I could have had a bigger one
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


@Ellebob is right. A few inches don’t matter much, but make sure you have a good margin above spec for hdr, lamp aging, not running in loud high lamp mode, etc.

Conversely, Youthman is wrong. It is easy to be wowed by size but after some critical viewing you’ll realize you are not getting the quality you paid for. You’ll notice youthman is a lifestyle blogger who doesn’t measure the setups Etc. 

Anyway personally I wouldn’t go above 135” in your situation so that I’d have the option of running the projector in a quieter mode, of not replacing the 600 dollar bulb annually to keep the brightness up etc. And I’d move my seats a little closer to make the screen look bigger.....

...and the difference between 131 and 126” is pretty small. I wouldn’t worry about that. That difference is possibly less than the normal variance between different bulbs straight from the factory.


----------



## ari821

nathan_h said:


> @Ellebob
> 
> 
> @Ellebob is right. A few inches don’t matter much, but make sure you have a good margin above spec for hdr, lamp aging, not running in loud high lamp mode, etc.
> 
> Conversely, Youthman is wrong. It is easy to be wowed by size but after some critical viewing you’ll realize you are not getting the quality you paid for. You’ll notice youthman is a lifestyle blogger who doesn’t measure the setups Etc.
> 
> Anyway personally I wouldn’t go above 135” in your situation so that I’d have the option of running the projector in a quieter mode, of not replacing the 600 dollar bulb annually to keep the brightness up etc. And I’d move my seats a little closer to make the screen look bigger.....
> 
> ...and the difference between 131 and 126” is pretty small. I wouldn’t worry about that. That difference is possibly less than the normal variance between different bulbs straight from the factory.


@nathan_h @Ellebob thanks for your detailed response.

Luckily as per Chris’ post-calibration number, he had mentioned 23.8 FL for the 131.9” screen with low bulb. I was just considering the other possibility of increasing couple of more FL by reducing the screen size to 126.2”.

I think , now with your posts above , I have understood that it won’t make significant change to brightness.Hence, I will stick with the 131.9” 16:9.

I plan to have my primary seating at 12’ from the screen and projector throw distance at 15’ from screen. Projector will be as close to ceiling as possible with a chief mount as my ceiling height is 8’. The screen I am inclining towards is the Seymour xd center stage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hawks07

I just got the itch to try and change out my screen and it's interesting to hear discussions about brightness especially now with tone mapping.
I am doing the LLDV hack for HDR which has helped greatly over just curves. Since I have been hearing brightness isn't as important anymore I have put off trying to upgrade my .8 gain Falcon screen. I believe even Kris Deering has mentioned that brightness isn't as crucial in HDR anymore. 
So I decided to try samples of the XD and the Dreamscreen V7.
The XD sample is definitely brighter especially the whites but seems to take away some of the punch of the other colors even to the point of looking a little washed away.
The Dreamscreen seems a tad dimmer than the XD but keeps the colors a little more natural to me.
Maybe it's just my personal taste and like the dimmer image. AlsoI do need to do more sampling since I've only done it for about an hour.
I also will try to post some pics later.


----------



## brazensol

I ordered samples of the Center Stage XD and UF about 2 months ago and am still waiting. Is this delay Covid related?


----------



## Hawks07

brazensol said:


> I ordered samples of the Center Stage XD and UF about 2 months ago and am still waiting. Is this delay Covid related?


Probably not. I received mine within a week.


----------



## chriscmore

brazensol said:


> I ordered samples of the Center Stage XD and UF about 2 months ago and am still waiting. Is this delay Covid related?


Shoot us a contact request with your address and we'll put another in the mail. Regular mail doesn't have a tracking number and service to Alaska might be slow these days? There are upgraded service levels like FedEx if you're interested.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## brazensol

Will do! Thanks Chris!


----------



## ari821

@chriscmore I have emailed you the below queries and thought of sharing same here just incase you see this prior to my email. 

It also helps me get to know other’s experience with the retractable screens.

I happened to see a retractable solid non- acoustic screen at Best Buy magnolia design center and saw some horizontal crease on the screen. They were very reflective and very distracting. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the name of the screen. Being asked , the representative blamed the screen’s retractable feature for the creases.That screen was an SI screen if I have to guess.

I am curious to know the experience of the members here with retractable xd center stage screen. 

1) Do you see any horizontal lines which I should be concerned about. I plan to purchase the h115(131.9 diagonal 16:9) screen for it’s higher gain.The xd is much more stiffer material compared to uf, hence I m bit more concerned of any creases that might be distracting.

2)If the horizontal lines do exist, would they be visible and distracting at 12’ seating distance or is it only visible in any specific situations with higher gain screens.

3) I plan to place a tv behind the screen as well. Will the default black backing behind the screen prevent any reflection of the tv. The screen will be placed 4’ from the front wall. The tv would be approx 2’ behind the screen

Thanks in advance for sharing any of your experience with the retractable xd screen!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ari821

Hawks07 said:


> I just got the itch to try and change out my screen and it's interesting to hear discussions about brightness especially now with tone mapping.
> I am doing the LLDV hack for HDR which has helped greatly over just curves. Since I have been hearing brightness isn't as important anymore I have put off trying to upgrade my .8 gain Falcon screen. I believe even Kris Deering has mentioned that brightness isn't as crucial in HDR anymore.
> So I decided to try samples of the XD and the Dreamscreen V7.
> The XD sample is definitely brighter especially the whites but seems to take away some of the punch of the other colors even to the point of looking a little washed away.
> The Dreamscreen seems a tad dimmer than the XD but keeps the colors a little more natural to me.
> Maybe it's just my personal taste and like the dimmer image. AlsoI do need to do more sampling since I've only done it for about an hour.
> I also will try to post some pics later.


I am a newbie on this and not having much experience. But I am curious , won’t reducing the iris ( provided your projector allows it) a tad bit help you with black levels and in turn give a feeling of more color saturation and contrast with the xd. I think the extra gain with xd might help you in future with aging lamp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jaydonoghue

ari821 said:


> 1) Do you see any horizontal lines which I should be concerned about. I plan to purchase the h115(131.9 diagonal 16:9) screen for it’s higher gain.The xd is much more stiffer material compared to uf, hence I m bit more concerned of any creases that might be distracting.
> 
> 2)If the horizontal lines do exist, would they be visible and distracting at 12’ seating distance or is it only visible in any specific situations with higher gain screens.
> 
> 3) I plan to place a tv behind the screen as well. Will the default black backing behind the screen prevent any reflection of the tv. The screen will be placed 4’ from the front wall. The tv would be approx 2’ behind the screen


I can’t speak for the XD, but I recently got a UF retractable. My screen is 105” across, and goes in front of a TV - about 6” in front of it. My seating is similar to yours at 13’.

I have seen no wrinkles/creases at all. The black backing is plenty to prevent any TV reflection.

I wonder if the screen you saw was perforated 
versus the woven material the Seymour AT screens use.

A couple of pix that may help.


----------



## BrolicBeast

ari821 said:


> @chriscmore I have emailed you the below queries and thought of sharing same here just incase you see this prior to my email.
> 
> It also helps me get to know other’s experience with the retractable screens.
> 
> I happened to see a retractable solid non- acoustic screen at Best Buy magnolia design center and saw some horizontal crease on the screen. They were very reflective and very distracting. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the name of the screen. Being asked , the representative blamed the screen’s retractable feature for the creases.That screen was an SI screen if I have to guess.
> 
> I am curious to know the experience of the members here with retractable xd center stage screen.
> 
> 1) Do you see any horizontal lines which I should be concerned about. I plan to purchase the h115(131.9 diagonal 16:9) screen for it’s higher gain.The xd is much more stiffer material compared to uf, hence I m bit more concerned of any creases that might be distracting.
> 
> 2)If the horizontal lines do exist, would they be visible and distracting at 12’ seating distance or is it only visible in any specific situations with higher gain screens.
> 
> 3) I plan to place a tv behind the screen as well. Will the default black backing behind the screen prevent any reflection of the tv. The screen will be placed 4’ from the front wall. The tv would be approx 2’ behind the screen
> 
> Thanks in advance for sharing any of your experience with the retractable xd screen!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hey @DMark1 would you mind sharing your experience here? You have a great eye for all things A/V and you own the retractable Centerstage XD WITHHHHHH retractable Masking to 16:9.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ari821

jaydonoghue said:


> View attachment 3128159
> View attachment 3128161
> 
> 
> I can’t speak for the XD, but I recently got a UF retractable. My screen is 105” across, and goes in front of a TV - about 6” in front of it. My seating is similar to yours at 13’.
> 
> I have seen no wrinkles/creases at all. The black backing is plenty to prevent any TV reflection.
> 
> I wonder if the screen you saw was perforated
> versus the woven material the Seymour AT screens use.
> 
> A couple of pix that may help.


Thanks for sharing your experience Jay! 

The xd is a bit stiffer with the vinyl compared to UF. Unfortunately , I cannot go with the UF as my luminance with jvc nx5 is already on the lower side.

Good to know that it works with tv behind .

I am not sure of the Best Buy screen name but it was a solid screen non AT and I guess was vinyl. But I do believe there were some stray lights on in the showroom as you can’t expect best light conditions in the magnolia.

I was engrossed comparing the xd sample paired with the nx5 and just forgot to ask them the screen name that was on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk in


----------



## Hawks07

ari821 said:


> I am a newbie on this and not having much experience. But I am curious , won’t reducing the iris ( provided your projector allows it) a tad bit help you with black levels and in turn give a feeling of more color saturation and contrast with the xd. I think the extra gain with xd might help you in future with aging lamp
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes you are correct. I have finally had some more time to play around with the samples and lowering the iris does help with the black levels.
I need to do a lot more testing with these samples. Both materials are really nice and offer an improvement over my current screen. I am slightly leaning toward the Dreamscreen but still need to try both out some more.


----------



## MKaram

I'm finishing construction on my theater room in the next month or so and will be looking to buy gear. I'm fairly certain I'm going with a Seymour electric retractable AT screen.

My room is light controlled with dark colored walls. I'm likely to go with JVC NX7 or NX9, and I'm likely to go with a 110-130" diagonal 16:9 screen (pending final measurements of the ceiling cavity. There will be a TV and center channel behind the screen that gets covered up when the screen comes down.

I'm trying to understand the differences between going with CenterStageUF or EnlightenerNeo.

Can anybody help me understand the trades offs in these choices?


----------



## thrillcat

MKaram said:


> I'm finishing construction on my theater room in the next month or so and will be looking to buy gear. I'm fairly certain I'm going with a Seymour electric retractable AT screen.
> 
> My room is light controlled with dark colored walls. I'm likely to go with JVC NX7 or NX9, and I'm likely to go with a 110-130" diagonal 16:9 screen (pending final measurements of the ceiling cavity. There will be a TV and center channel behind the screen that gets covered up when the screen comes down.
> 
> I'm trying to understand the differences between going with CenterStageUF or EnlightenerNeo.
> 
> Can anybody help me understand the trades offs in these choices?


call Seymour. They’re also a JVC dealer and can answer any question you have.


----------



## chriscmore

MKaram said:


> I'm finishing construction on my theater room in the next month or so and will be looking to buy gear. I'm fairly certain I'm going with a Seymour electric retractable AT screen.
> 
> My room is light controlled with dark colored walls. I'm likely to go with JVC NX7 or NX9, and I'm likely to go with a 110-130" diagonal 16:9 screen (pending final measurements of the ceiling cavity. There will be a TV and center channel behind the screen that gets covered up when the screen comes down.
> 
> I'm trying to understand the differences between going with CenterStageUF or EnlightenerNeo.
> 
> Can anybody help me understand the trades offs in these choices?


They're the same gain, which is the most you can get from an uncoated thread without having to resort to detail and contrast-blurring multi-reflective layers. Both are color perfect. Beyond about 6ft viewing, they'll look the same, as the UF's texture becomes nearly as invisible as the Enlightor-Neo's. They're both acoustically flat, but the Neo is notably better (-1.5dB versus -2.2dB).

Likely the largest difference for most is the cost. The Center Stage UF is available consumer-direct for maybe half the price of a dealer-installed Enlightor-Neo screen. Jon or Jess can send you samples if you'd like.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## MKaram

chriscmore said:


> They're the same gain, which is the most you can get from an uncoated thread without having to resort to detail and contrast-blurring multi-reflective layers. Both are color perfect. Beyond about 6ft viewing, they'll look the same, as the UF's texture becomes nearly as invisible as the Enlightor-Neo's. They're both acoustically flat, but the Neo is notably better (-1.5dB versus -2.2dB).
> 
> Likely the largest difference for most is the cost. The Center Stage UF is available consumer-direct for maybe half the price of a dealer-installed Enlightor-Neo screen. Jon or Jess can send you samples if you'd like.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Great info, thanks! That means I'll almost certainly go with with CenterStageUF. I'll be at about 10ft viewing distance and my room is medium sealed so I'll have plenty of headroom for the sound attenuation.

I'll probably shoot you guys an email in a few weeks!


----------



## bearcat2002

Just purchased an electronic masking screen from Seymour AV. It’s worth ponying up for. I was going to post a video on here but I think you can only post photos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thrillcat

bearcat2002 said:


> Just purchased an electronic masking screen from Seymour AV. It’s worth ponying up for. I was going to post a video on here but I think you can only post photos.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you post the video to YouTube, then you can just paste the link here and AVS will embed the video.


----------



## bearcat2002

Perfect. Thanks. Here is a link to my screen. BTW, this screen is amazing.


----------



## bearcat2002

Grey bars. ugh.


----------



## bearcat2002

No grey bars now and not only is it nice and inky black top/bottom, it also makes a nice sharp line of distinction. Nice upgrade.


----------



## Lionelhutzz

bearcat2002 said:


> Perfect. Thanks. Here is a link to my screen. BTW, this screen is amazing.


Hey! The screen looks amazing.
I'm thinking of importin a 100" proscenium screen from seymour AV (I'm in the UK).
I got in touch with them, and they've been very helpful but there's still a few questions that I have.
Could you help me figure some things out since you installed a similar model?

Thanks!

Marco


----------



## Jeffg8

bearcat2002 said:


> View attachment 3132043
> 
> 
> No grey bars now and not only is it nice and inky black top/bottom, it also makes a nice sharp line of distinction. Nice upgrade.


Funny, I didnt really notice the bars until looking at the second picture. Did you handle the ordering/install your self or go thru a dealer? 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## BrolicBeast

Hey everyone, Chris Seymour was featured on the Home Theater Fanatics YouTube channel here. Check it out...it was a great discussion! 






Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ladeback

BrolicBeast said:


> Hey everyone, Chris Seymour was featured on the Home Theater Fanatics YouTube channel here. Check it out...it was a great discussion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


I watched this yesterday and wish I could afford the 4 way masking. Just having a 2.07:1 would be nice.


----------



## bearcat2002

Jeffg8 said:


> Funny, I didnt really notice the bars until looking at the second picture. Did you handle the ordering/install your self or go thru a dealer?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Just do it yourself. Call them and speak to Jon. He’s incredible and will customize specifically for you. I configured mine to a 1/10th of an inch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jdgate

I will speak to Chris and his staff being incredible. I actually live down the road from their headquarters. Just bought the JVC NX5 projector from Chris to replace my Epson 5020 and he came over installed and calibrated it himself. It had been 7 years since I had last stopped in the shop and bought my screen. Jon took me on a tour of all the new space since I was last there (when it was pretty much just Jon and Chris) and answered pretty much every question I had (or sent it to Chris if he couldn't.) Overall great experience, and I would highly recommend them.


----------



## Harkon

Looking to purchase some rolled UF material to fit to a 100" 16:9 screen that I already have. This screen has tension springs spaced every 6". I was hoping to add grommets to the UF material and then attach to these springs.

Is the 6" spacing going to work or will it sag/lack tension?


----------



## RVD26

bearcat2002 said:


> Just purchased an electronic masking screen from Seymour AV. It’s worth ponying up for. I was going to post a video on here but I think you can only post photos.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How much does this masking screen go for?


----------



## nathan_h

RVD26 said:


> How much does this masking screen go for?


Significantly more than the screen itself. A great feature if one has the extra money and has maxed out the projector quality (eg, JVC) already.


----------



## RVD26

nathan_h said:


> Significantly more than the screen itself. A great feature if one has the extra money and has maxed out the projector quality (eg, JVC) already.


Do you have an actual dollar amount? I don't see a price on their website.


----------



## sor

RVD26 said:


> Do you have an actual dollar amount? I don't see a price on their website.


The Proscenium line is surprisingly reasonable budget masking frame from $3587 at 109” diag to $5355 for 149”. The nicer ones are a lot more of course.






Seymour AV | Store


Seymour AV is the premier manufacturer of acoustically transparent home theater projection screens in the world, maintaining the highest standards in projection screen innovation, design and craftsmanship




seymourav.com


----------



## nathan_h

Yeah in the world of masking, that's a bargain. I dream of one day having a setup where I do something like that.


----------



## chriscmore

Harkon said:


> Looking to purchase some rolled UF material to fit to a 100" 16:9 screen that I already have. This screen has tension springs spaced every 6". I was hoping to add grommets to the UF material and then attach to these springs.
> 
> Is the 6" spacing going to work or will it sag/lack tension?


It's hard to say because the tension per point is unknown. Six inches is enough on our fixed frame design because it doesn't need to be tensioned very much. If you can integrate a rod into the screen material, that would even it out. Another possibility is to integrate more points with more springs or zip ties, as the more points the merrier.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Harkon

chriscmore said:


> It's hard to say because the tension per point is unknown. Six inches is enough on our fixed frame design because it doesn't need to be tensioned very much. If you can integrate a rod into the screen material, that would even it out. Another possibility is to integrate more points with more springs or zip ties, as the more points the merrier.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Existing screen uses a rod. I could potentially sew a seam in the the UF material, use the same rods and implement in the same way. Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## brazensol

Chris,

I purchased the Center Stage XD material to replace my white over black spandex screen I've been using for 3+ years now. I will be sitting closer than the recommended 10' viewing distance by about 6 inches. Try as I might I could not see the weave on the sample size material but I realize things might be different on the "big" screen. At any rate should I keep and reuse the black layer of spandex or remove it and use the XD material "naked"?


----------



## nathan_h

If the space behind the screen is black then naked should work fine.


----------



## bearcat2002

sor said:


> The Proscenium line is surprisingly reasonable budget masking frame from $3587 at 109” diag to $5355 for 149”. The nicer ones are a lot more of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seymour AV | Store
> 
> 
> Seymour AV is the premier manufacturer of acoustically transparent home theater projection screens in the world, maintaining the highest standards in projection screen innovation, design and craftsmanship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seymourav.com


Not sure what the “nicer ones” get you. I love my proscenium. By far all one needs and impressive in its own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lionelhutzz

Hi,

I placed an order for a Seymour Proscenium 5 weeks ago and still haven't heard back from either Jon or Dan from Seymour AV. They did say it would probably take 6/8 weeks for my screen to be ready but I am a bit taken back by the radio silence and the lack of updates (apart from confirmation they received the funds).
As I spent almost 4 grand on this screen, I would expect better communication from the team and I'm starting to get a bit nervous.

Anyone has Chris Seymour email address so I can maybe get him involved as well?

Thanks all


----------



## nathan_h

He is on the forum from time to time and has his phone number in his signature in his posts just a few posts up before yours.

But of course if they said six to eight weeks and it has been five, I’d guess you won’t hear anything until one to three weeks from now…….


----------



## thrillcat

Lionelhutzz said:


> Hi,
> 
> I placed an order for a Seymour Proscenium 5 weeks ago and still haven't heard back from either Jon or Dan from Seymour AV. They did say it would probably take 6/8 weeks for my screen to be ready but I am a bit taken back by the radio silence and the lack of updates (apart from confirmation they received the funds).
> As I spent almost 4 grand on this screen, I would expect better communication from the team and I'm starting to get a bit nervous.
> 
> Anyone has Chris Seymour email address so I can maybe get him involved as well?
> 
> Thanks all


what are you expecting to hear during this time?

My guess is, if they have questions they’ll contact you, otherwise they’ll contact you when they’re shipping it. They’re very easy to reach during business hours at the phone number on the website.


----------



## shepP

Lionelhutzz said:


> Hi,
> 
> I placed an order for a Seymour Proscenium 5 weeks ago and still haven't heard back from either Jon or Dan from Seymour AV. They did say it would probably take 6/8 weeks for my screen to be ready but I am a bit taken back by the radio silence and the lack of updates (apart from confirmation they received the funds).
> As I spent almost 4 grand on this screen, I would expect better communication from the team and I'm starting to get a bit nervous.
> 
> Anyone has Chris Seymour email address so I can maybe get him involved as well?
> 
> Thanks all


Did this end up working out for you?


----------



## Lionelhutzz

shepP said:


> Did this end up working out for you?


Actually my screen hasn't been completed yet.
Apparently there's now delays because most of the staff at the company is sick with covid.
I understand of course, but so far I can't say I've been impressed with the way my order has been handled.

I'll try to reserve judgement until the screen has been shipped and delivered, but it's been a long and painful process so far and still have no idea when it will be ready.


----------



## chriscmore

Lionelhutzz said:


> Actually my screen hasn't been completed yet.
> Apparently there's now delays because most of the staff at the company is sick with covid.
> I understand of course, but so far I can't say I've been impressed with the way my order has been handled.
> 
> I'll try to reserve judgement until the screen has been shipped and delivered, but it's been a long and painful process so far and still have no idea when it will be ready.


Hi Lionel -

PM me the name it was purchased under and I'll update you on the status. We've had a few folks go into quarantine but not most of the staff. Most of the Proscenium delays have been due to electronics supply problems, with a few more being affected by problems in the Glacier materials.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Lionelhutzz

chriscmore said:


> Hi Lionel -
> 
> PM me the name it was purchased under and I'll update you on the status. We've had a few folks go into quarantine but not most of the staff. Most of the Proscenium delays have been due to electronics supply problems, with a few more being affected by problems in the Glacier materials.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris





chriscmore said:


> Hi Lionel -
> 
> PM me the name it was purchased under and I'll update you on the status. We've had a few folks go into quarantine but not most of the staff. Most of the Proscenium delays have been due to electronics supply problems, with a few more being affected by problems in the Glacier materials.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris.
Just PM'd you


----------



## chriscmore

Lionelhutzz said:


> Thanks Chris.
> Just PM'd you


Copying into the thread so other viewers can see where this issue was/is: 

"The invoice says it was going to have Matinee Black Wide material. I see on the order that it was changed to Glacier White, which caused the delay. We've been having issues with the sheen level on the Glacier materials. I opened up your screen layer to take measurements and confirmed the black banded side is the back. If you find it to be a problem, we'll send you a replacement GW from a future batch or we can switch back to the MBw screen. I can get a tube to you quickly. The screen itself was packaged up last Wednesday, so we should get that on its way. I'll work with Jon to get the shipment arranged and have a tracking number for you hopefully tomorrow."

This screen is pretty cool in its uniqueness. It's a top/bottom Proscenium with 4:3 magnetic side masking panels added, so almost a 4-way screen. I like that it has a lot of our tricks into it, so I hope it all goes in beautifully.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Lionelhutzz

chriscmore said:


> Copying into the thread so other viewers can see where this issue was/is:
> 
> "The invoice says it was going to have Matinee Black Wide material. I see on the order that it was changed to Glacier White, which caused the delay. We've been having issues with the sheen level on the Glacier materials. I opened up your screen layer to take measurements and confirmed the black banded side is the back. If you find it to be a problem, we'll send you a replacement GW from a future batch or we can switch back to the MBw screen. I can get a tube to you quickly. The screen itself was packaged up last Wednesday, so we should get that on its way. I'll work with Jon to get the shipment arranged and have a tracking number for you hopefully tomorrow."
> 
> This screen is pretty cool in its uniqueness. It's a top/bottom Proscenium with 4:3 magnetic side masking panels added, so almost a 4-way screen. I like that it has a lot of our tricks into it, so I hope it all goes in beautifully.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris

Sorry, what is the problem with the glacier white? It was my first choice but then I switched to the matinee because it was going to take too long for the glacier. Since they were raady at the same time I switched to the glacier white again. 
What is exactly the problem with this material? I want to make sure it's not going to be an issue since it's taking so long. 

Thanks 

Marco


----------



## chriscmore

Hi Marco -

The Glacier screens are on the edge of our spec for glossiness. If there are any issues with the screen then we'll replace the visual layer when a new batch becomes available assuming it meets our inspection.

Thanks,
Chris


----------



## Lionelhutzz

Hi Chris,

Thanks for confirming.
So I gather the current issues with the sheen levels means there might be pretty visible hot spotting.
That's honestly far from ideal, as this screen is not just for my personal home theatre but my small post production facility as well.
If I have your word you will send me a replacement without any additional cost when you have the new batch in stock, go ahead with the current glacier white order.
I was never told of any issues with the GW apart from that material not being in stock last June (which is why I switched to the matinee despite having a bright projector and a fully black dedicated room).
It's not great that I have to find out here about this issues and it's part of what made this process not great for me.

That said, all will be forgotten if I'm going to be happy with the screen in the end.

Marco


----------



## DavidK442

Lionelhutzz said:


> If I have your word…


Unfortunately “pinky-swears” are out due to the pandemic (just like screen materials I imagine). Maybe a sincere heart cross would appease?


----------



## Lionelhutzz

DavidK442 said:


> Unfortunately “pinky-swears” are out due to the pandemic (just like screen materials I would imagine). Maybe a sincere heart cross would appease?


I'd imagine it wouldn't be great PR if the CEO of a company lied on a public forum...


----------



## chriscmore

Lionelhutzz said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> Thanks for confirming.
> So I gather the current issues with the sheen levels means there might be pretty visible hot spotting.
> That's honestly far from ideal, as this screen is not just for my personal home theatre but my small post production facility as well.
> If I have your word you will send me a replacement without any additional cost when you have the new batch in stock, go ahead with the current glacier white order.
> I was never told of any issues with the GW apart from that material not being in stock last June (which is why I switched to the matinee despite having a bright projector and a fully black dedicated room).
> It's not great that I have to find out here about this issues and it's part of what made this process not great for me.
> 
> That said, all will be forgotten if I'm going to be happy with the screen in the end.
> 
> Marco


Hi Marco -

There isn't a definitive number at which hotspotting becomes visible, as vision is not linear. We've demonstrated our ALR materials at trade shows with industry professionals WAY closer than we recommend, without obvious effect to their discriminating eyes. Commercial theaters have about a 25% luminance difference from center to edge, assumingly to an acceptable level for most people but I'd like to think that's about the limit. I'd estimate about half that is due to the projector and optics and the other half the screen's gain, which is simply the redirection of light. If light uniformity is your primary criteria, then you shouldn't look into ambient light rejection screens such as the Matinee Black. While they do what they do very well, the most uniform screens are the scatter-type like whites and grays. ALR screens address contrast in non-ideal rooms, which could otherwise be your most important criteria, as contrast is the leading indicator of overall image quality.

We have production specs that include surface finish, and our current Glacier White and Gray is right at our limit. While we're working with the processors to get more comfortably within our spec, we're happy to substitute or swap out screen layers as needed. I would hope there isn't anyone out there dissatisfied with a product and my name on it.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Lionelhutzz

chriscmore said:


> Hi Marco -
> 
> There isn't a definitive number at which hotspotting becomes visible, as vision is not linear. We've demonstrated our ALR materials at trade shows with industry professionals WAY closer than we recommend, without obvious effect to their discriminating eyes. Commercial theaters have about a 25% luminance difference from center to edge, assumingly to an acceptable level for most people but I'd like to think that's about the limit. I'd estimate about half that is due to the projector and optics and the other half the screen's gain, which is simply the redirection of light. If light uniformity is your primary criteria, then you shouldn't look into ambient light rejection screens such as the Matinee Black. While they do what they do very well, the most uniform screens are the scatter-type like whites and grays. ALR screens address contrast in non-ideal rooms, which could otherwise be your most important criteria, as contrast is the leading indicator of overall image quality.
> 
> We have production specs that include surface finish, and our current Glacier White and Gray is right at our limit. While we're working with the processors to get more comfortably within our spec, we're happy to substitute or swap out screen layers as needed. I would hope there isn't anyone out there dissatisfied with a product and my name on it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hi Chris,

The matinee black was never my main option as the room couldn't be any darker, but since I was told the GW was out of stock for months John suggested I go for that option and then I might swap it at some point in the future if I wasn't happy with that.
Since it's back in stop I'm happy to proceed with the Glacier white, I just hope there aren't obvious issues with the glossiness but I take it that if the performance is not acceptable you'll send a replacement at some point.
Hopefully that's not going to be the case as I don't like the idea of dismantling the screen again, but it would be good to know I won't be stuck with a screen with surface issues.
FYI, I still haven't received any official updates or a tracking number regarding my order.

Marco


----------



## stephenbr

chriscmore said:


> Hi Lionel -
> 
> PM me the name it was purchased under and I'll update you on the status. We've had a few folks go into quarantine but not most of the staff. Most of the Proscenium delays have been due to electronics supply problems, with a few more being affected by problems in the Glacier materials.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I've been trying to place an order for a screen for the last couple of weeks - are things getting better in the office so that I can get my order processed?


----------



## chriscmore

stephenbr said:


> I've been trying to place an order for a screen for the last couple of weeks - are things getting better in the office so that I can get my order processed?


Everyone is in and catching up. If you have any questions or needs, feel free to email me directly too: [email protected]

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## FenceMan

chriscmore said:


> Copying into the thread so other viewers can see where this issue was/is:
> 
> "The invoice says it was going to have Matinee Black Wide material. I see on the order that it was changed to Glacier White, which caused the delay. We've been having issues with the sheen level on the Glacier materials. I opened up your screen layer to take measurements and confirmed the black banded side is the back. If you find it to be a problem, we'll send you a replacement GW from a future batch or we can switch back to the MBw screen. I can get a tube to you quickly. The screen itself was packaged up last Wednesday, so we should get that on its way. I'll work with Jon to get the shipment arranged and have a tracking number for you hopefully tomorrow."
> 
> This screen is pretty cool in its uniqueness. It's a top/bottom Proscenium with 4:3 magnetic side masking panels added, so almost a 4-way screen. I like that it has a lot of our tricks into it, so I hope it all goes in beautifully.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I am having hotspot issues with the Glacier White screen I just got in, does this have something to do with the sheen issues? I have already emailed Jon but have not heard back yet (only yesterday, I know everyone is busy). Just not sure if this is normal but at this point it is incredibly distracting and basically the only thing I see when I watch.

Here is link to full size photo taken from main viewing position. Hard to miss the hotspot dead center of screen - Hotspot.jpg


----------



## chriscmore

FenceMan said:


> I am having hotspot issues with the Glacier White screen I just got in, does this have something to do with the sheen issues? I have already emailed Jon but have not heard back yet (only yesterday, I know everyone is busy). Just not sure if this is normal but at this point it is incredibly distracting and basically the only thing I see when I watch.
> 
> Here is link to full size photo taken from main viewing position. Hard to miss the hotspot dead center of screen - Hotspot.jpg


It's hard to see in your screenshot, but if you have any issues we'll have more Glacier White available in a couple weeks. Jon can queue up a screen-layer replacement order for you.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Gabre

looking for 130" cinemascope, material only, or with frame, or for DIY, 

give me options. the cheaper the better. DIY is a route to consider as well. 

im in canada, ON


----------



## chriscmore

Gabre said:


> looking for 130" cinemascope, material only, or with frame, or for DIY,
> 
> give me options. the cheaper the better. DIY is a route to consider as well.
> 
> im in canada, ON


Start here to narrow down your options. Hit the store page to see pricing, and then the contact us page or call for specifics. Make sure we're referring to image width or diagonal in our communications, too.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## DMILANI

Just ordered samples of XD and UF to compare. I’m looking to upgrade my dedicated theater from a 106” 1.78:1 to 130” diagonal 2.35:1 (anyone looking for a pristine Da-lite HP 2.8 screen?). I have a JVC RS440 and will use the zoom method. 

Since my room is relatively narrow, my speakers will have to be behind the screen, hence the need for an AT screen. My front row is about 12’ from eyes to front wall/screen so I’m hoping the XD will work out for the increased gain. Looking at the Premiere frame with manual side masks.


----------



## thrillcat

DMILANI said:


> Just ordered samples of XD and UF to compare. I’m looking to upgrade my dedicated theater from a 106” 1.78:1 to 130” diagonal 2.35:1 (anyone looking for a pristine Da-lite HP 2.8 screen?). I have a JVC RS440 and will use the zoom method.
> 
> Since my room is relatively narrow, my speakers will have to be behind the screen, hence the need for an AT screen. My front row is about 12’ from eyes to front wall/screen so I’m hoping the XD will work out for the increased gain. Looking at the Premiere frame with manual side masks.


XD should be good from 12’. I switched to UF when I moved up to about 10’.


----------



## Mike Butny

DMILANI said:


> Just ordered samples of XD and UF to compare. I’m looking to upgrade my dedicated theater from a 106” 1.78:1 to 130” diagonal 2.35:1 (anyone looking for a pristine Da-lite HP 2.8 screen?). I have a JVC RS440 and will use the zoom method.
> 
> Since my room is relatively narrow, my speakers will have to be behind the screen, hence the need for an AT screen. My front row is about 12’ from eyes to front wall/screen so I’m hoping the XD will work out for the increased gain. Looking at the Premiere frame with manual side masks.


I have a 125inch 2:37.1 screen with XD material and the back of my theater seats are around 12ft from the screen and I do not see any sort of weave. I have the precision frame and use the zooming method with my JVC RS500.


----------



## DMILANI

Sounds great, thanks for the input Mike. Is that 125” diagonal? How is the brightness with HDR material? I believe your RS500 has about the same lumens as my RS440.


----------



## DMILANI

Also, anyone have in wall speakers behind the Premiere frame/screen? Will this work OK? How close to the wall does the back of the screen material sit?


----------



## nathan_h

I dont recall which frame I had but they all seem to place the material a couple inches off the wall. Since it is woven fabric, you can pretty much not worry about distance (unlike perforated screens which usually want as much as a foot of distance between speaker and scree).

I am sure @chriscmore has published technical details about this.


----------



## Han Wedge

Is 11' from screen to eye balls really too close to get XD? Cause in previous post Chris seemed to recommend UF at this distance.

My room is under construction but my screen diagonal would be 131.9'' and I plan to buy a NX7 so to get over 27-28 fL I'd need a screen with gain. Of course another solution would be to wait for the NZ7 (should be brighter) but there's a huge price gap (about 4000 CAD)


----------



## newoski

When it comes to in-wall LCR behind Seymour UF screens, what is the closest the left/right speakers can be to the outside edges of the UF portion of the screen? Narrow room and I'm going to be battling for every inch.


----------



## FenceMan

chriscmore said:


> It's hard to see in your screenshot, but if you have any issues we'll have more Glacier White available in a couple weeks. Jon can queue up a screen-layer replacement order for you.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Just want to point out your guys sent me XD to replace the issue I had with glacier white and everything is amazing now. Everyone should be aware these guys stand behind their products and they should be acknowledged for doing so, thanks.


----------



## nathan_h

Han Wedge said:


> Is 11' from screen to eye balls really too close to get XD? Cause in previous post Chris seemed to recommend UF at this distance.
> 
> My room is under construction but my screen diagonal would be 131.9'' and I plan to buy a NX7 so to get over 27-28 fL I'd need a screen with gain. Of course another solution would be to wait for the NZ7 (should be brighter) but there's a huge price gap (about 4000 CAD)


I would get samples of both and see. You are in that transition zone where some people may be bothered and many won’t. 

Ideally use a bright projector but in a pinch a flashlight might help.


----------



## nathan_h

newoski said:


> When it comes to in-wall LCR behind Seymour UF screens, what is the closest the left/right speakers can be to the outside edges of the UF portion of the screen? Narrow room and I'm going to be battling for every inch.


Depends a bit on the dispersion of the speaker and what angle will impact the sound. I’d leave at least a few inches If I didn’t have solid data that the speakers had a narrow dispersion.


----------



## newoski

nathan_h said:


> Depends a bit on the dispersion of the speaker and what angle will impact the sound. I’d leave at least a few inches If I didn’t have solid data that the speakers had a narrow dispersion.


So basically, if I know the dispersion, create a mockup of that angle coming out of the center of the speaker... and just make sure it clears the AT portion?


----------



## nathan_h

That's what I would do. There might be a better practice. 

It's not really specific to Seymour screens but would be similar to many other woven screens, I suspect, so it may be worth posting a question (or searching) in the home theater build threads, too.


----------



## howiee

nathan_h said:


> I would get samples of both and see. You are in that transition zone where some people may be bothered and many won’t.
> 
> Ideally use a bright projector but in a pinch a flashlight might help.


Yeah, it varies from person to person. Both me and my better half could see texture at 13' with XD


----------



## DMILANI

I am waiting for my XD sample, but I have hawk eyes so I’m concerned I’ll be able to see the weave from about 12-13’ back (front row). That’s why I also ordered a sample of the Dreamscreen V7 material to compare. I have a JVC RS440 and plan on a 120” wide scope screen, so need/want the extra gain, especially for HDR material.


----------



## Lionelhutzz

My screen has arrived and I could see the issue with the sheen right away.
Frankly I find it baffling that a screen with such an obvious defect would be shipped to paying customers.

@*chriscmore Can you arrange to send me a replacement screen from the new batch asap?
The current one is simply unacceptable to me.*


----------



## thrillcat

Lionelhutzz said:


> My screen has arrived and I could see the issue with the sheen right away.
> Frankly I find it baffling that a screen with such an obvious defect would be shipped to paying customers.
> 
> @*chriscmore Can you arrange to send me a replacement screen from the new batch asap?
> The current one is simply unacceptable to me.*


Chris will see this at some point, but all customer service requests should be sent through proper channels - phone or email. This is AVSforum, not SeymourAV.com.


----------



## Lionelhutzz

thrillcat said:


> Chris will see this at some point, but all customer service requests should be sent through proper channels - phone or email. This is AVSforum, not SeymourAV.com.


I understand, but this is the thread for the Seymour AV screens and I for one would have liked to know beforehand of any issues as a customer. So I think any issues with current orders should be address in the main thread as well.


----------



## thrillcat

Lionelhutzz said:


> I understand, but this is the thread for the Seymour AV screens and I for one would have liked to know beforehand of any issues as a customer. So I think any issues with current orders should be address in the main thread as well.


I’m not saying it isn’t good for the discussion, but if you want a timely response, this is not the proper place.
Your post used a tone that sounded like this was the only place you’re dealing with the request. Just want to make sure you realize they don’t have a customer support team monitoring this thread all day long.


----------



## Lionelhutzz

thrillcat said:


> I’m not saying it isn’t good for the discussion, but if you want a timely response, this is not the proper place.
> Your post used a tone that sounded like this was the only place you’re dealing with the request. Just want to make sure you realize they don’t have a customer support team monitoring this thread all day long.


Ah, sorry about that.
I did get in touch with their support but I never hear back from them.
Chris said they will replace my screen for free, so I'll reserve judgement until that one arrives.
It's a shame the sheen issue with the GW is so distracting as otherwise I'm very happy with the finishing and the masking system.
It also resolves a lot more detail than my previous screen, but I've had my share of projector screens in the last decade and I've never experienced anything close to the reflection issues I'm seeing now.


----------



## Technology3456

Does anyone know which weave screen is better to reduce RGB laser speckle, the Dreamscreen V7 screen, or the Seymour model that is best for this (I was told it is the "Neo" but have knowledge of it myself)?

I am not asking which screen has better acoustic transparency, or which screen has better image quality on average. The only criteria I am focused on is which will reduce RGB laser speckle better, if anyone has any idea.


----------



## chriscmore

Technology3456 said:


> Does anyone know which weave screen is better to reduce RGB laser speckle, the Dreamscreen V7 screen, or the Seymour model that is best for this (I was told it is the "Neo" but have knowledge of it myself)?
> 
> I am not asking which screen has better acoustic transparency, or which screen has better image quality on average. The only criteria I am focused on is which will reduce RGB laser speckle better, if anyone has any idea.


The Enlightor-Neo was chosen amongst an evaluation of many different materials by a leading RGB laser integrator. In addition, it's being used in possibly the only residential 6-laser projection installation.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Han Wedge

And where can we you buy it when you live in Canada?


----------



## chriscmore

Han Wedge said:


> And where can we you buy it when you live in Canada?


Here's the general answer: S-SE Territory Map, Contact Us The rep should (hopefully) be helpful but if they're not or if you'd like otherwise, contact us we can get specific with the dealers.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## DMILANI

I’m still waiting for my UF and XD samples to arrive that were shipped more than 2 weeks ago. Does Seymour ship these out first class mail or something else? I’m in Massachusetts and can’t imagine it would take this long. 

In contrast, the Dreamscreen V7 sample took two days to get to me. I need to make my screen selection decision ASAP, but want to compare my options carefully.


----------



## chriscmore

DMILANI said:


> I’m still waiting for my UF and XD samples to arrive that were shipped more than 2 weeks ago. Does Seymour ship these out first class mail or something else? I’m in Massachusetts and can’t imagine it would take this long.
> 
> In contrast, the Dreamscreen V7 sample took two days to get to me. I need to make my screen selection decision ASAP, but want to compare my options carefully.


We use first class mail, unless you pony up for FedEx or whatever. I've heard of our northern neighbors having to wait weeks for postal service, but not in the US. Since it was a free sample, ping Jon or Jess to put another in the mail.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## nysh01

BIC2 said:


> I have Epson 6050, XD screen 16:9, 130" wide, 16.5' throw, 11' to first row. For 16:9, I find this max comfortable size. For 2:35, 130" wide is fine, could probably do 140" OK. Given you'll be a foot closer, I'd stick with 130". Or, do what I did; bought projector and watched it on wall (unfortunately for that use, dark gray) for a few months before deciding on screen size.


@BIC2 - Saw this post of yours from last year. I am about to pull the trigger on a Seymour XD 150"D 2.35.1 screen. I too have an Epson 6050UB. Since you have similar configuration wanted to see how you are liking the combination of XD/6050UB. I am upgrading from a non-AT to XD screen and I am putting my front speakers behind the screen. thx.


----------



## stephenbr

Can you swap a SeymourAV retractable screen from a ceiling mount set up to a wall mount set up and vice versa?


----------



## chriscmore

stephenbr said:


> Can you swap a SeymourAV retractable screen from a ceiling mount set up to a wall mount set up and vice versa?


Yes. The mounting bar is different, (ceiling is twice as deep as the wall bracket) but the extrusion and screw holes are there for either way.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## nysh01

Got my Seymour Center Stage XD 150” diagonal 2.35.1 screen last week. Install was a breeze. Loving the picture and the sound.
Jon was so helpful throughout the process. Thank you to the fantastic team at Seymour.


----------



## Lionelhutzz

Lionelhutzz said:


> Ah, sorry about that.
> I did get in touch with their support but I never hear back from them.
> Chris said they will replace my screen for free, so I'll reserve judgement until that one arrives.
> It's a shame the sheen issue with the GW is so distracting as otherwise I'm very happy with the finishing and the masking system.
> It also resolves a lot more detail than my previous screen, but I've had my share of projector screens in the last decade and I've never experienced anything close to the reflection issues I'm seeing now.


As an update to my post.
Chris and the team sent me a replacement GW screen that is now hotspot free.
While I still think that the defective batch should have never been sent out to customers, I'm now very happy with both the screen and the masking system.
Communication with the Seymour team has been spotty at times, but they did come around and sort out the problem in the end and the screen is great.
So overall, I can count myself as a happy customer after all.


----------



## newoski

Hi Guys,

I just received my samples of UF and XD. I understand that my goal is to test to see if I can see the weave and from what distance, but can anyone give me a bit of guidance? What does it look like when you can see the weave? I've seen references to brighter content making it more visible... Hoping for some guidance on demo content to discern my own limitations on viewing distance so I can choose between UF and XD.


----------



## nathan_h

I would play some bright content -- something like a snowy scene from a hollywood movie, or scenes with lots of bright skies -- and that should give you a sense.


----------



## newoski

nathan_h said:


> I would play some bright content -- something like a snowy scene from a hollywood movie, or scenes with lots of bright skies -- and that should give you a sense.


SDR or HDR? I will test both, but assume HDR is more of an issue due to brighter content?


----------



## howiee

newoski said:


> SDR or HDR? I will test both, but assume HDR is more of an issue due to brighter content?


Yeah - bright, plain scenes. White clouds, snow, patches of clear blue sky. Better with panning shots.


----------



## newoski

howiee said:


> Yeah - bright, plain scenes. White clouds, snow, patches of clear blue sky. Better with panning shots.


Hmmm. So far I'm testing from 11 feet and way closer, like 3-4 and I'm not seeing anything. Now, that is most likely indicating I don't know what I'm supposed to be noticing, not to indicate that I'm blind...

( :


----------



## nathan_h

newoski said:


> SDR or HDR? I will test both, but assume HDR is more of an issue due to brighter content?


Sure, HDR may be the more critical test though I find texture is easier to see on large swathes of a light and bright color, whereas HDR may have small very bright areas, but doesn't often have large areas that are a lot brighter than SDR large bright areas. (Yes, there are exceptions, and if you can find some, that would be a good torture test)



newoski said:


> Hmmm. So far I'm testing from 11 feet and way closer, like 3-4 and I'm not seeing anything. Now, that is most likely indicating I don't know what I'm supposed to be noticing, not to indicate that I'm blind...
> 
> ( :


Sometimes the weave is visible if you slightly defocus your eyes or look at a slightly different plane of focus than the main screen image. 

Maybe throw up a white piece of office paper as well, so you have three different patches on the wall that you are looking at and tell us what you do see, in terms of a difference between the three, if any?


----------



## newoski

nathan_h said:


> Sure, HDR may be the more critical test though I find texture is easier to see on large swathes of a light and bright color, whereas HDR may have small very bright areas, but doesn't often have large areas that are a lot brighter than SDR large bright areas. (Yes, there are exceptions, and if you can find some, that would be a good torture test)
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes the weave is visible if you slightly defocus your eyes or look at a slightly different plane of focus than the main screen image.
> 
> Maybe throw up a white piece of office paper as well, so you have three different patches on the wall that you are looking at and tell us what you do see, in terms of a difference between the three, if any?


Thanks, Nathan, as always. So what am I looking for, exactly? Is it just seeing the weave, itself? Which is to say, look at the screen from as close as I need to to identify what the weave looks like, and then see how far back I can see that same "pattern"? Or is it artifacting/PQ issues beyond just seeing the texture in the material? 

(I ready about moire effect and things like that, in the past, so I'm not sure if I'm looking for "weirdness" or or just "texture"... so far, seeing neither


----------



## nathan_h

I would focus just on texture. This is based on the weave.

I don't think Seymour materials tend to introduce moire. There is some discussion on the Seymour site about moire.

The other artifact with some screen material is "sparklies" or "sheen" but again I don't think either of your materials is likely susceptible to that.

I'm assuming when you old them in your hand you can tell the difference based on the visible weave?

At the end of the day, I would use the one with more gain, if you don't see any artifacts at your viewing distance. Few people can see any artifacts with either of these materials at your seating distance of 11 feet so you are probably safe with either.


----------



## howiee

newoski said:


> Hmmm. So far I'm testing from 11 feet and way closer, like 3-4 and I'm not seeing anything. Now, that is most likely indicating I don't know what I'm supposed to be noticing, not to indicate that I'm blind...
> 
> ( :


Then count yourself blessed and stop looking for it 

I could see XD texture at 13'. Basically the static texture of the weave standing out against a panning image. But yeah - don't go looking for it and enjoy


----------



## newoski

OK, so I think I understand what it is now. Basically, on XD it basically looks kinda like a diagonal lines. Does that sound right?


----------



## nathan_h

howiee said:


> Then count yourself blessed and stop looking for it
> 
> I could see XD texture at 13'. Basically the static texture of the weave standing out against a panning image. But yeah - don't go looking for it and enjoy


 Good point about a moving image. That can emphasize the fact that "something" the eye sees is not moving (screen texture for example) even when the rest of the image is moving.


----------



## cricket9998

I need a scope retractable screen and Seymour has really attractive pricing not to mention their sense of humor.
My only concern is their retractable screens only come with AT fabric. I sit about 10.5-11 ft from my screen and I would be getting the closest one that is 135”.

will I see the weave with either fabric? I wanted the one with fewer weaves but it’s also 0.8 gain which is unfortunate.


----------



## newoski

cricket9998 said:


> I need a scope retractable screen and Seymour has really attractive pricing not to mention their sense of humor.
> My only concern is their retractable screens only come with AT fabric. I sit about 10.5-11 ft from my screen and I would be getting the closest one that is 135”.
> 
> will I see the weave with either fabric? I wanted the one with fewer weaves but it’s also 0.8 gain which is unfortunate.


Best recommendation is to get samples from Seymour and test for yourself, but as I'm the most recent one to do so on the forums, I'll share my two cents. I just finished testing the UF and XD. I can't see the weave from 10-11 feet during most content, however, as others will mention, during heavy white scenes -- snow / clouds etc -- the "diagonal lines" of the weave do become visible and a bit distracting. I can't see any weave with the UF from much closer than 10 feet, however, I also forgot to request black backing for the test material, so I haven't really tested it optimally yet. Without the black backing -- since my walls are currently white -- black levels are better on the XD. Once I have the black backing (or black walls), then the UF will have about 20% better black levels, since it is 0.8 vs (I believe) 1.0 for XD.


----------



## nathan_h

cricket9998 said:


> My only concern is their retractable screens only come with AT fabric.


Pretty sure they have several choices of non acoustically transparent screen materials for drop down screens as well, if that if what you seek.


----------



## newoski

Anyone have any experience with KEF Q Series towers behind an AT screen? I just realized that the front ABR (passive radiator) ports might be an issue and end up pushing against the screen...


----------



## cricket9998

nathan_h said:


> Pretty sure they have several choices of non acoustically transparent screen materials for drop down screens as well, if that if what you seek.


They unfortunately only make retractable screens with AT. Not sure why. I really like the rest of the screen but I really don’t want anything AT. The equivalent Stewart screen with normal fabric is twice the price 😂


----------



## nathan_h

I think you should call them. They offered to make me one at one time. I think they even have a note on their web site saying that drop down screens are custom quoted per order due to the variables involved (how much drop, what kind of remote control, etc). Certainly when I was shopping, the screen I wanted was NOT on the web site, but when I spoke with them, they were happy to make it.


----------



## newoski

Can any Proscenium owners chime in on manually adjusting the masking via remote -- specifically, how easy is it to dial in a non-full-open position, manually? Are you constantly overshooting and then dialing back, or is it pretty simple to dial in to your desired mask?


----------



## cricket9998

nathan_h said:


> I think you should call them. They offered to make me one at one time. I think they even have a note on their web site saying that drop down screens are custom quoted per order due to the variables involved (how much drop, what kind of remote control, etc). Certainly when I was shopping, the screen I wanted was NOT on the web site, but when I spoke with them, they were happy to make it.


they said no 😞 looks like I have to go with another brand


----------



## newoski

Silly question, but potentially game changing for my usage... I originally tested the CenterStage XD material with the weave pattern running vertically. In this orientation, I am noticing the weave even at 11 feet. However, I just tried rotating the material so that the weave is running horizontally across the screen and I seem to notice it much less. Has anyone else experimented with this and, more importantly, which way does the weave run on a fully assembled Seymour screen?


----------



## Lionelhutzz

newoski said:


> Can any Proscenium owners chime in on manually adjusting the masking via remote -- specifically, how easy is it to dial in a non-full-open position, manually? Are you constantly overshooting and then dialing back, or is it pretty simple to dial in to your desired mask?


The masking moves slow enough for me to stop it at the desired position for aspect ratios like 1:85 without too much tinkering.


----------



## dododge

newoski said:


> which way does the weave run on a fully assembled Seymour screen?


According to their website "our fixed frame screens are always cut at a 10 to 20 degree tilt with respect to the roll". On my 120"-wide 2.35:1 CenterStage XD, I'd say the most visible aspect of the weave is closer to horizontal than vertical, ramping upward from left to right. See zoomed-in image below:


----------



## Hyper_Eye

Have the issues with sheen/hotspotting with the glacier white material been fully resolved at this point? I am looking at replacing my Stewart Cima Neve screen because it has shimmering artifacts that are distracting to me. I just got a sample of the glacier white material and it looks fantastic imo. It's very smooth, no visible texture, and if I place it over the Neve material it makes the shimmer disappear. I am heavily leaning towards ordering a precision screen with glacier white material but I want to be sure that the sample represents what I will get if I move forward with it. Thanks.


----------



## Lionelhutzz

Hyper_Eye said:


> Have the issues with sheen/hotspotting with the glacier white material been fully resolved at this point? I am looking at replacing my Stewart Cima Neve screen because it has shimmering artifacts that are distracting to me. I just got a sample of the glacier white material and it looks fantastic imo. It's very smooth, no visible texture, and if I place it over the Neve material it makes the shimmer disappear. I am heavily leaning towards ordering a precision screen with glacier white material but I want to be sure that the sample represents what I will get if I move forward with it. Thanks.


You should confirm with Jon or Chris about what's being sent going forward.
I can only speak about the replacement I got last month, which is absolutely sheen/hotspot free.
I did a lot of stress tests and the problem is definitely not there anymore.
The defective batch of GW was extremely noticeable in anything but very dark scenes and no amount of closing the iris/moving the projector could fix the hotspot.
Perhaps the earlier batch felt slightly sharper and had more of an unnatural pop due to the sheen, but I find the replacement more accurate after proper calibration.


----------



## chriscmore

Hyper_Eye said:


> Have the issues with sheen/hotspotting with the glacier white material been fully resolved at this point? I am looking at replacing my Stewart Cima Neve screen because it has shimmering artifacts that are distracting to me. I just got a sample of the glacier white material and it looks fantastic imo. It's very smooth, no visible texture, and if I place it over the Neve material it makes the shimmer disappear. I am heavily leaning towards ordering a precision screen with glacier white material but I want to be sure that the sample represents what I will get if I move forward with it. Thanks.


Yes, both Glacier materials are perfectly uniform.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Hyper_Eye

chriscmore said:


> Yes, both Glacier materials are perfectly uniform.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris. I had an e-mail exchange with Jon earlier today and he said the same.


----------



## Heath7

newoski said:


> Silly question, but potentially game changing for my usage... I originally tested the CenterStage XD material with the weave pattern running vertically. In this orientation, I am noticing the weave even at 11 feet. However, I just tried rotating the material so that the weave is running horizontally across the screen and I seem to notice it much less. Has anyone else experimented with this and, more importantly, which way does the weave run on a fully assembled Seymour screen?


I have a custom diy 127" with CenterStage XD with JVC NX7 projector and main seating at just under 11ft. (Measured and viewing distance is 9.5ft) Screen should be cut at an angle, not vertical or horizontal. My main concern when deciding on XD material was seeing the weave. I am happy to say, that the weave is completely unnoticeable in my setup. I just watched Dune in the best/largest Screen theater in my area, then streamed it in my home theater, and the picture quality was noticeably better in my home theater. I can't give any higher praise than that.


----------



## tturgut

Center Stage XD vs Enlightener neo differences? (sitting distance 10-11 feet).

I guess :
1) XD is slightly brighter. (1.2 vs 0.95)
2) neo has finer weaves and these are less prominent even at 6-7 feet. (XD 10-11 feet?)
3) Neo is installer bought /installed, 2x more expensive.

are these the main differences?

Image? cost twice is probably not worth it?


----------



## Ellebob

NEO is more similar to UF as far as texture goes. There are differences and one of the differences is the way they attach to the frame. The Neo is more involved and takes more time but is more uniform in how it is stretched. Because of the smoother weave I feel it gives a slightly sharper image. Cost is personal preference. The NEO is one of the best AT materials I have seen and the closest to a solid screen but it is certainly not the value screen. If it isn't going to break the piggy bank I would go NEO.


----------



## Heath7

tturgut said:


> Center Stage XD vs Enlightener neo differences? (sitting distance 10-11 feet).
> 
> I guess :
> 1) XD is slightly brighter. (1.2 vs 0.95)
> 2) neo has finer weaves and these are less prominent even at 6-7 feet. (XD 10-11 feet?)
> 3) Neo is installer bought /installed, 2x more expensive.
> 
> are these the main differences?
> 
> Image? cost twice is probably not worth it?


Definitely get samples of each to physically compare. XD wasn't my first choice until I compared several samples from multiple companies. Although UF had tighter weave than XD, I couldn't see weave of either in my setup. XD seems more durable and cleanable which won me over for longevity of screen. Just measured and 1st row is 9.5 ft viewing distance.


----------



## nathan_h

The twenty percent increase in gain with XD is pretty useful as well.


----------



## MerKurie

Any word on how the fabric/screen options with 8k content. I am awaiting a new JVC with their new faux 8k, would like to future proof screen as much as possible. I'm specifically looking at XD vs. UF. We know that with HDR content, the higher gain the better, always the tradeoff with acoustically transparent.

@chriscmore - have you guys been able to test the new JVC lineup at all with your screens yet? Can you comment on 8k with screen material lineup?


----------



## chriscmore

The only resolution-limiting material is the microperf, with its approximately 4k-sized pixel-deleting holes like all other the other leading microperf screens have. The woven materials' holes are 5-10 times smaller than a 8k pixel and like non-AT screens don't discard information. Amplitude can be compensated for; pixel deletion can't.

It's not true that with HDR the higher gain the better. The screen's gain needs to cooperate with the room requirements, projector's characteristics and screen size. Gain isn't an awesomeness rating, and HDR is not a brightness format.

When calibrating the NX9, I would turn 8k e-shift on for XD and off for other screens. We've not yet received the new projector shipments, but I'm expecting their dithering technology to behave similarly to what we've seen them do before.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## flyers10

If I'm going to be 8 feet from about a 95" diagonal 16x9 screen, what AT material do I want to go with? Most likely will pair with a JVC NX5.


----------



## Heath7

flyers10 said:


> If I'm going to be 8 feet from about a 95" diagonal 16x9 screen, what AT material do I want to go with? Most likely will pair with a JVC NX5.


At that distance you should really get samples of any material you are interested in and try it out. My distance is 9.5 ft from 127" DIY screen with XD material using NX7. I started with $15 of spandex installed as test material and taped samples to it while testing. This allows you to still enjoy the theater and not have to rush the decision.


----------



## chriscmore

flyers10 said:


> If I'm going to be 8 feet from about a 95" diagonal 16x9 screen, what AT material do I want to go with? Most likely will pair with a JVC NX5.


For a relatively smaller image size with close viewing, the Center Stage UF was designed for this application. The upgrade option is the Enlightor-Neo available through our dealer/installer brand Seymour-Screen Excellence.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## flyers10

chriscmore said:


> For a relatively smaller image size with close viewing, the Center Stage UF was designed for this application. The upgrade option is the Enlightor-Neo available through our dealer/installer brand Seymour-Screen Excellence.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris. Is the Enlightor-Neo a big noticeable image improvement for the cost increase?


----------



## chriscmore

flyers10 said:


> Thanks Chris. Is the Enlightor-Neo a big noticeable image improvement for the cost increase?


Questions of whether or not something is worth it are hard to answer. The Neo has about half the thread and weave pattern size, which eliminates the UF's 6ft minimum seating distance. It would also cut the acoustic attenuation about in half from the UF's -2.2dB, from pretty flat to essentially frequency independent. Finally the Neo is supported by the industry, so if you need installation, product reviews, showrooms to visit, or more sophisticated product platforms, then whether or not all that is worth it I can't say.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Chesterwhipplefilter

flyers10 said:


> If I'm going to be 8 feet from about a 95" diagonal 16x9 screen, what AT material do I want to go with? Most likely will pair with a JVC NX5.


I have a slightly larger size UF at a slightly farther distance (106 diagonal 16x9 screen at 9-10 feet distance). I have it paired with the 5050UB and am mostly happy with it, though I do wonder if I had gone with the Neo the picture would appear sharper. That's my biggest issue with it - I feel like I can never really get it totally crisp and in focus.

I had a temporary spandex screen up while waiting for my order and had no problem with that (obviously wasn't AT) and found it to be a little sharper actually, but of course worse in every other way. I've actually been toying with getting some larger Neo samples to see if it would make much difference.I don't think I'd be able to justify the cost at this point, particularly since I'm the only one in my family that sees it (and my wife thinks I'm crazy). Perhaps I should just go to the optometrist. 

Watch their B-stock - I think there's a few Neo demos up there right now close to your screen size.


----------



## DavidK442

Spandex is smooth as a baby’s bottom so perhaps when pixel peeping it may appear sharper, though it tends to bloom around bright objects. Regardless, at normal viewing distance I don’t think there is a difference in sharpness between the two. Lower gain and non-standardized colour for the spandex sway things slightly in UF’s favour in my opinion.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Wow - really surprised that there are no retractable screens with any other fabric than acoustic transparent. Who made that fine marketing decision? Oh well - - Seymour AV isn‘t interested in profit so I’ll look to SilverTicket. I already have one of their matte white, electronic screens and I was looking for another screen for our new house (larger). Unless I go with a fixed screen, Seymour AV is out of the running. One less thread to read.


----------



## thrillcat

Ricoflashback said:


> Wow - really surprised that there are no retractable screens with any other fabric than acoustic transparent. Who made that fine marketing decision? Oh well - - Seymour AV isn‘t interested in profit so I’ll look to SilverTicket. I already have one of their matte white, electronic screens and I was looking for another screen for our new house (larger). Unless I go with a fixed screen, Seymour AV is out of the running. One less thread to read.


----------



## steelman1991

I happened to take down my screen last night and noticed that the screen was badly discoloured in comparison with the extremities of the screen hidden beneath the bezel. Has anyone else seen this and perhaps know what might have caused it.

Can these screens be washed in an attempt to bring the colour back? It's a Seymour CentreStage UF material.


----------



## DMILANI

Sunlight? Or cigarette smoke? Other than that, not sure. But that is a pretty drastic difference.


----------



## steelman1991

DMILANI said:


> Sunlight? Or cigarette smoke? Other than that, not sure. But that is a pretty drastic difference.


Thanks for the suggestions

Sadly neither - the room gets no sunlight and no-one smokes. It is dramatic. It's in a dedicated space, it's really weird


----------



## thrillcat

steelman1991 said:


> Thanks for the suggestions
> 
> Sadly neither - the room gets no sunlight and no-one smokes. It is dramatic. It's in a dedicated space, it's really weird


Confirm with @chriscmore but I believe UF can simply be tossed in the washing machine.


----------



## nathan_h

Looks like dust build up. 

I've never had a screen that didn't collect dust over time, though using an air filter in the room seems to slow the accumulation.


----------



## steelman1991

nathan_h said:


> Looks like dust build up.
> 
> I've never had a screen that didn't collect dust over time, though using an air filter in the room seems to slow the accumulation.


Wow really!!!. My wife will be really pleased to hear she keeps a dusty house . Guess I'll have to start looking for Air Purifiers - whichis what I assume you are referring to. Do you guys constantly "dust" your screens. I have to admit it's not something I ever thought about nor have I dusted down the material. Is this an issue with all screens, or just AT. Can't say i've noticed a lot of chat about.

Thanks to everyone who offered a suggestion


----------



## fatherom

That discoloration looks far too uniform to be dust, to me.


----------



## steelman1991

@chriscmore - care to comment, any thoughts.


----------



## nathan_h

steelman1991 said:


> Wow really!!!. My wife will be really pleased to hear she keeps a dusty house . Guess I'll have to start looking for Air Purifiers - whichis what I assume you are referring to. Do you guys constantly "dust" your screens. I have to admit it's not something I ever thought about nor have I dusted down the material. Is this an issue with all screens, or just AT. Can't say i've noticed a lot of chat about.
> 
> Thanks to everyone who offered a suggestion


Sorry yes "air purifier"..... assuming it is something from the environment that is small and airborne, that might help.... 

Some manufacturers have specific instructions about how to clean screens. I don't recall that info coming with my EN4K screen I used to have. (The alternate brand I ended up with for my temporary room while my new theater is constructed includes such info.)

I think Chris has commented on cleaning in this thread before, but that probably predates the material you are using.


----------



## nathan_h

fatherom said:


> That discoloration looks far too uniform to be dust, to me.


Yeah, it's a challenging one. If it's dust and easy to clean that's a great solution because it's easy. If it's not dust, or otherwise solvable by cleaning, that seems more complicated to resolve. That being said, dust in my home tends to collect in very uniform layers between cleanings. But I notice it most on horizontal surfaces, though hung fabric like drapes will collect it too. 

---

@steelman1991 Chris tends to respond quicker to inquiries sent to his business email in my experience.


----------



## steelman1991

Thanks Nathan I’ll reach out to him and see what he suggests. I couldn’t believe it when I took it down and saw the difference. My calibrator commented the last time he was here, how dull the picture was - guess we know now why


----------



## nathan_h

From the pictures it looks like quite a tonal shift for sure. Please share what you learn/do. My next room will probably use their XD material unless size and distance lead me to the UF.


----------



## steelman1991

nathan_h said:


> From the pictures it looks like quite a tonal shift for sure. Please share what you learn/do. My next room will probably use their XD material unless size and distance lead me to the UF.


I’ve sent an email this morning to Chris/Jon. Will post back any suggestions/resolution.


----------



## chriscmore

From the email convo, we're going to try washing the UF first. Maybe it's static dust collection, maybe it's something outgassing behind the image. I've not seen this before, but like thrillcat said, let's wash it thoroughly first.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Ricoflashback said:


> Wow - really surprised that there are no retractable screens with any other fabric than acoustic transparent. Who made that fine marketing decision? Oh well - - Seymour AV isn‘t interested in profit so I’ll look to SilverTicket. I already have one of their matte white, electronic screens and I was looking for another screen for our new house (larger). Unless I go with a fixed screen, Seymour AV is out of the running. One less thread to read.


Performance niche companies tend not to enter a product space unless there's something to differentiate. There are plenty of painted Chinese shower curtains available from I think every other company. My patent involves aspects of stitching a fabric assembly that are unique and in my opinion worth protecting (fabric velvet borders, hidden tension cables, etc).

I do have the extrusions for working with our non-AT films, and will come out with something different when it wants me to.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## fatherom

chriscmore said:


> From the email convo, we're going to try washing the UF first. Maybe it's static dust collection, maybe it's something outgassing behind the image. I've not seen this before, but like thrillcat said, let's wash it thoroughly first.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Can we get an update if washing fixes it? I'm curious as well.


----------



## Ricoflashback

chriscmore said:


> Performance niche companies tend not to enter a product space unless there's something to differentiate. There are plenty of painted Chinese shower curtains available from I think every other company. My patent involves aspects of stitching a fabric assembly that are unique and in my opinion worth protecting (fabric velvet borders, hidden tension cables, etc).
> 
> I do have the extrusions for working with our non-AT films, and will come out with something different when it wants me to.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks, I think. I really don’t know what you mean outside of confirming that your retractable screens are only available in the AT format. I guess you see no value in any other fabric for electronic screens. That’s a business decision you’ve made and while I don’t understand it - it’s your prerogative. No need to get cryptic or denigrate other manufacturers who provide motorized screens with multiple fabric options. Your solution is a “one size fits all” and good for you, your company and your unique patent. Wishing you the best of the holiday season.


----------



## Ricoflashback

fatherom said:


> That discoloration looks far too uniform to be dust, to me.


He now has a gray, high contrast screen. Just kidding. That change in color looks chemical in nature to me. Like someone dyed it or a chemical reaction. I don’t see any way you could wash that out uniformly. It’s bonded to the surface almost like it’s baked in. I’ve heard of dusting screens or maybe cleaning a small area but never washing them entirely. Is the screen in the basement, near a washer or dryer or an HVAC duct of some sort? Humid area? I hope the OP finds an acceptable solution.


----------



## steelman1991

fatherom said:


> Can we get an update if washing fixes it? I'm curious as well.


I see Chris beat me to it - but yes I will update the thread once I have washed it.


----------



## steelman1991

Ricoflashback said:


> He now has a gray, high contrast screen. Just kidding. That change in color looks chemical in nature to me. Like someone dyed it or a chemical reaction. I don’t see any way you could wash that out uniformly. It’s bonded to the surface almost like it’s baked in. I’ve heard of dusting screens or maybe cleaning a small area but never washing them entirely. Is the screen in the basement, near a washer or dryer or an HVAC duct of some sort? Humid area? I hope the OP finds an acceptable solution.


Hi Rico

The screen is in a dedicated room in our house (no basements in this part of Scotland), not near any washer/Dryer, we do have an Air Con unit at the the rear of the room approx 5 metres from the screen wall, but has only been switched on about a dozen times - we don't tend to get extremely hot or humid weather in Scotland  and it's only really used when we have family visit for a movie night.

Chris has already stated they will replace the material if needed. We fortunatelly own a Table Linen Hire Service/Laundry, so won't be an issue to launder.

Will update on progress.


----------



## steelman1991

fatherom said:


> Can we get an update if washing fixes it? I'm curious as well.


I will update thread after washing.


----------



## Ricoflashback

steelman1991 said:


> Hi Rico
> 
> The screen is in a dedicated room in our house (no basements in this part of Scotland), not near any washer/Dryer, we do have an Air Con unit at the the rear of the room approx 5 metres from the screen wall, but has only been switched on about a dozen times - we don't tend to get extremely hot or humid weather in Scotland  and it's only really used when we have family visit for a movie night.
> 
> Chris has already stated they will replace the material if needed. We fortunatelly own a Table Linen Hire Service/Laundry, so won't be an issue to launder.
> 
> Will update on progress.


All the best. By the way - I’m watching an incredible series set in Scotland called Shetland. Superb acting and fantastic scenery. It looks great on my humble, home theater 100” screen. I subscribe to both BritBox and Acorn for European content. Manhunt with Martin Clunes is also superb.


----------



## greganka

Does anyone in Canada or Ontario have the sample material for center stage XD and UF? I'll compensate for it as well, it seems like it will take them a month to ship it here and I was hoping to have my screen done for Christmas.


----------



## steelman1991

Ricoflashback said:


> All the best. By the way - I’m watching an incredible series set in Scotland called Shetland. Superb acting and fantastic scenery. It looks great on my humble, home theater 100” screen. I subscribe to both BritBox and Acorn for European content. Manhunt with Martin Clunes is also superb.


Yeah Shetland is much loved in this household too - just a nice gentle pace, much like the island itself, opposed to the frantic nature of many of the US cirme dramas.

Follow-up to the screen discolouration - washing didn't resolve the issue, so Chris is arranging replacement - wonderful service. Thanks Chris


----------



## steelman1991

Unfortunately washing hasn't resolved the issue of discolouration of the screen. Chris is making arrangements to replace the material - first class service from him and Jon.


----------



## fatherom

steelman1991 said:


> Unfortunately washing hasn't resolved the issue of discolouration of the screen. Chris is making arrangements to replace the material - first class service from him and Jon.


Great that they’re replacing, but I’m darned curious what caused such a uniform discoloration.


----------



## Ricoflashback

steelman1991 said:


> Yeah Shetland is much loved in this household too - just a nice gentle pace, much like the island itself, opposed to the frantic nature of many of the US cirme dramas.
> 
> Follow-up to the screen discolouration - washing didn't resolve the issue, so Chris is arranging replacement - wonderful service. Thanks Chris


Yes, indeed. Shetland is at such a great pace with superb acting. Much different, like you say, than U.S. crime dramas where there always seems to be a frantic pace until the conclusion. Not that Shetland Police and DI Perez aren't committed to solving a crime/homicide quickly. But the back and forth from the landscape to the interaction with the island, the water, the people - - really superb. Also - - if you haven't watched Manhunt and especially the 2nd season based on a true story (The Night Stalker) - - give it a go. Really top notch.

Also - - I didn't think washing would cure the screen problem as that looks like a chemical reaction that is baked in. So, watch for any new signs with the new screen. Something interacted with your current screen and hopefully, it was a bad batch or isolated incident with the one screen you had from Seymour AV. Nice to hear that they are responsive in handling your issue.


----------



## Ricoflashback

chriscmore said:


> Performance niche companies tend not to enter a product space unless there's something to differentiate. There are plenty of painted Chinese shower curtains available from I think every other company. My patent involves aspects of stitching a fabric assembly that are unique and in my opinion worth protecting (fabric velvet borders, hidden tension cables, etc).
> 
> I do have the extrusions for working with our non-AT films, and will come out with something different when it wants me to.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris - - looks like most manufacturers have electronic screens with plain, white matting (non AT.) Shower curtain included. Just kidding. Very few, electronic screens with grey material. I guess not much of a demand.

I was intrigued by your fixed frame, scope, Glacier Gray PS and Matinee Black screen material. Is the latter the same material like your JV company, Seymour Screen Excellence's, "Ambient Visionaire" screen? In a non-fully, light controlled room (no direct sunlight but lighter walls and not a Velvet Elvis theater) - for nighttime viewing, which would be the best? I suspect you'd need a high lumen output PJ like the Epson 5050/6050 or a laser projector with a higher lumen output for the Matinee Black? Seems like a great solution for a multipurpose room to increase black levels. I know the better the room and contrast of the projector - - the better the blacks. Thx.

P.S. - Matinee Wide also looks good.


----------



## chriscmore

Ricoflashback said:


> Chris - - looks like most manufacturers have electronic screens with plain, white matting (non AT.) Shower curtain included. Just kidding. Very few, electronic screens with grey material. I guess not much of a demand.
> 
> I was intrigued by your fixed frame, scope, Glacier Gray PS and Matinee Black screen material. Is the latter the same material like your JV company, Seymour Screen Excellence's, "Ambient Visionaire" screen? In a non-fully, light controlled room (no direct sunlight but lighter walls and not a Velvet Elvis theater) - for nighttime viewing, which would be the best? I suspect you'd need a high lumen output PJ like the Epson 5050/6050 or a laser projector with a higher lumen output for the Matinee Black? Seems like a great solution for a multipurpose room to increase black levels. I know the better the room and contrast of the projector - - the better the blacks. Thx.
> 
> P.S. - Matinee Wide also looks good.


Depending on the size of the screen you're interested in, and how much you're a fan or low black levels or high specular highlights, the Matinee Black or Wide would be your best choices. They would best reject those light colored surfaces and provide for the occasional daytime viewing.

The Glacier Gray is best if you're a fan of smoother more filmlike images, or in other words don't like the contrast-amping look of ambient light rejecting technology. As with any scatter screen, the surface colors and ambient lighting need more attention.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## uscmatt99

Chris,

I may be doing a basement build next year. The 130" wide Proscenium 2.4:1 looks ideal for what I'm trying to accomplish (JVC NZ projector with DCR lens). This will be in an open basement room with medium grey paint and will not be a bat cave, unfortunately. It seems the Matinee Wide microperf'd AT screen would best fit the bill. How much space is recommended between the speaker baffles and the screen? How far back, roughly, should the viewer be from the screen to avoid seeing perforations? And what is the recommended viewing cone angle for this material? I previously had an Enlightor 4K screen in a batcave and I loved that screen even at 9'. Fortunately in the new room I won't be length constrained for ideal seating position and projector positioning.


----------



## Hyper_Eye

I received my Fixed Frame Precision screen with Glacier White material earlier today. It looks pretty good. The only issue I have is that there are some wrinkles just in the top right and bottom left corners. I took the screen down, undid the o-rings, and reconnected them starting at the center and working out to the corners. The wrinkles are still there. Any suggestions on getting this tensioned right without wrinkles?


----------



## Hyper_Eye

Is the edging done correctly on this screen? It seems like if the edging was run to the grommet on both sides then I would get the corner tension needed to pull the wrinkles out. If I pull the edging down on the side that comes short it pulls the wrinkles out. Pulling the grommet just stretches away from it leaving the wrinkles. I don't see any way to secure it without the wrinkles.


----------



## Technology3456

Hyper_Eye said:


> Is the edging done correctly on this screen? It seems like if the edging was run to the grommet on both sides then I would get the corner tension needed to pull the wrinkles out. If I pull the edging down on the side that comes short it pulls the wrinkles out. Pulling the grommet just stretches away from it leaving the wrinkles. I don't see any way to secure it without the wrinkles.
> View attachment 3205588


Shot in a dark from someone with zero experience with this, but for each loop of strings on each screw, maybe you could try crossing the so to speak feet of each loop once or twice before putting each loop around each screw in order to increase the tension. I'm not talking about crossing the string from screw A with the string from screw B, but rather taking each U loop on the screw and sort of twisting its "feet" so that the II part of the loop twists once or twice before the u part of the loop is still put over the screw the same as it is right now.

However, I only see that there are screws for with strings in the corner of the screen, and then the part of the screen that is in the area of the top of the photo. If the wrinkles on the screen are more in the area of the bottom of the photo where there are no strings, then it wouldn't work. But if there is a way to tighten the strings around any the areas where there are wrinkles by making the strings travel a further distance to effectively shorten them and increase the tension, then it might be worth a shot. I hope you find a solution one way or another.


----------



## Hyper_Eye

Technology3456 said:


> Shot in a dark from someone with zero experience with this, but for each loop of strings on each screw, maybe you could try crossing the so to speak feet of each loop once or twice before putting each loop around each screw in order to increase the tension. I'm not talking about crossing the string from screw A with the string from screw B, but rather taking each U loop on the screw and sort of twisting its "feet" so that the II part of the loop twists once or twice before the u part of the loop is still put over the screw the same as it is right now.
> 
> However, I only see that there are screws for with strings in the corner of the screen, and then the part of the screen that is in the area of the top of the photo. If the wrinkles on the screen are more in the area of the bottom of the photo where there are no strings, then it wouldn't work. But if there is a way to tighten the strings around any the areas where there are wrinkles by making the strings travel a further distance to effectively shorten them and increase the tension, then it might be worth a shot. I hope you find a solution one way or another.


Thanks for the suggestion. I have tried numerous ways of increasing the tension with the o-rings. I have also tried using some of the included zip ties but nothing I have done has eliminated the wrinkles.


----------



## steelman1991

Hyper_Eye said:


> Is the edging done correctly on this screen? It seems like if the edging was run to the grommet on both sides then I would get the corner tension needed to pull the wrinkles out. If I pull the edging down on the side that comes short it pulls the wrinkles out. Pulling the grommet just stretches away from it leaving the wrinkles. I don't see any way to secure it without the wrinkles.
> View attachment 3205588


I might be missing something, but arent there screws and grommets on the short side too? My screen and material has them on all four sides to give even tensioning? That doesn't look right to me.


----------



## Hyper_Eye

steelman1991 said:


> I might be missing something, but arent there screws and grommets on the short side too? My screen and material has them on all four sides to give even tensioning? That doesn't look right to me.


Of course. Here is a picture from a little farther out.


----------



## steelman1991

LOL phew that makes more sense. Have you tried moving the screw to the left of its current position? I'd reach out to Seymour support if you feel you've tried everything.


----------



## Technology3456

Hyper_Eye said:


> Of course. Here is a picture from a little farther out.
> View attachment 3205693


It looks like just the corner peac ereally needs to be pulled more toward the corner, and down from our perspective looking at the photo. If you could tighten that one down like 50%, and to the right like 35%, maybe the exact right combination like that would get rid of the crease. I know you said you tried already, but it always looks easier in a picture than real life, hehe. 

But I mean, unless the screen is totally broken, the crease is there because the screen needs to be pulled more towards the corner. And the only built in way on the screen to pull it more is with the strings and the screws. So you would think that tightening them in order to pull it enough in the right direction would get rid of it. But if it doesn't, then it doesn't. Maybe there is something else going on. Hope you get it figured out.


----------



## chriscmore

uscmatt99 said:


> Chris,
> 
> I may be doing a basement build next year. The 130" wide Proscenium 2.4:1 looks ideal for what I'm trying to accomplish (JVC NZ projector with DCR lens). This will be in an open basement room with medium grey paint and will not be a bat cave, unfortunately. It seems the Matinee Wide microperf'd AT screen would best fit the bill. How much space is recommended between the speaker baffles and the screen? How far back, roughly, should the viewer be from the screen to avoid seeing perforations? And what is the recommended viewing cone angle for this material? I previously had an Enlightor 4K screen in a batcave and I loved that screen even at 9'. Fortunately in the new room I won't be length constrained for ideal seating position and projector positioning.


The minimum spacing to the microperf is four inches. The minimum viewing distance is similar to the XD at 10'. The Matinee Wide material has a half-gain angle of 90 degrees, but keep in mind that half gain looks 80% as bright so it's not as bad as it sounds. But like all angular reflective materials, the more on-axis the better.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Hyper_Eye said:


> Is the edging done correctly on this screen? It seems like if the edging was run to the grommet on both sides then I would get the corner tension needed to pull the wrinkles out. If I pull the edging down on the side that comes short it pulls the wrinkles out. Pulling the grommet just stretches away from it leaving the wrinkles. I don't see any way to secure it without the wrinkles.
> View attachment 3205588


Yes, the edging is done correctly. You are supposed to use two O-rings per corner though, instead of the "L" shape with one. This gets you the proper corner tension. Secondly, keep in mind that stretchy materials can take a week to settle out. Finally, we do include the zip ties if there are any stubborn bits where you wish you could pull more in any areas.

Not sure why you have a magnet attached to the corner bracket though. Did you get something custom or did we just inadvertently have one attached?

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Hyper_Eye

chriscmore said:


> Yes, the edging is done correctly. You are supposed to use two O-rings per corner though, instead of the "L" shape with one. This gets you the proper corner tension.


I followed the directions that came with the screen. It includes a section on the corners which instructs and demonstrates connecting with the L shape. The printout is identical to this document on the Seymour website: http://www.seymourav.com/articles/Precision Fixed Frame Screen Assembly pg 4123, 2-2-17.pdf


> The corner o-rings will form an “L” shape across the corner grommets. Use 1 per corner.


If that is incorrect then it should be updated.



chriscmore said:


> Secondly, keep in mind that stretchy materials can take a week to settle out. Finally, we do include the zip ties if there are any stubborn bits where you wish you could pull more in any areas.


With some experimentation I got the wrinkles out. I moved the corner screws closer to the corner. Then the key thing was to reduce the tension on the surrounding posts. I did so by looping the oring through itself and attaching only one side to the posts. I still had to use the zip ties to get that last bit of tension into the corner. The corners look good now. If things change in the next few weeks I will take it down and readjust.



chriscmore said:


> Not sure why you have a magnet attached to the corner bracket though. Did you get something custom or did we just inadvertently have one attached?


I ordered the optional magnetic wall pulls with my screen. That magnet is part of it. There are no instructions on how to attach it to the screen and I couldn't find anything on the subject searching the Seymour site and here. Sticking them to the corner bracket worked fine but I would love to know how they are intended to be attached.

Thanks for your help! So far I'm happy with the screen. I was going a bit mad because of shimmering on my Stewart Cima Neve screen. With the glacier white there is absolutely no shimmer.


----------



## chriscmore

Ah yes, I didn't notice you got the Precision frame. It normally doesn't need double corners, but we include the rings anyway so that together with the zip ties everything can be adjusted as necessary. I'll add a note to double up when necessary.

Stick them to the corner bracket, and push the screws against the wall to make a witness mark. Remove the wall pulls from the screen and install where those marks were. Then the magnets will grab the corner brackets. You can adjust front/back spacing by adding or taking away washers.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Hyper_Eye

chriscmore said:


> Stick them to the corner bracket, and push the screws against the wall to make a witness mark. Remove the wall pulls from the screen and install where those marks were. Then the magnets will grab the corner brackets. You can adjust front/back spacing by adding or taking away washers.


That's pretty much what I did and it worked well. The bottom of the screen is nicely secured to the wall.


----------



## blake

Ellebob said:


> NEO is more similar to UF as far as texture goes. There are differences and one of the differences is the way they attach to the frame. The Neo is more involved and takes more time but is more uniform in how it is stretched. Because of the smoother weave I feel it gives a slightly sharper image. Cost is personal preference. The NEO is one of the best AT materials I have seen and the closest to a solid screen but it is certainly not the value screen. If it isn't going to break the piggy bank I would go NEO.


Have you compared Neo to Dreamscreen V7 ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nathan_h

Anyone know if Seymour AV (not Screen Excellence) will be added to the CEDIA Designer (TCD) software ?

I realize SE is their installer channel, but sometimes it makes sense to spec something else based on client needs and budget, and the AV lineup is no slouch.


----------



## chriscmore

Unlikely, as the S-AV brand's cost and pricing structure isn't designed to include sales and marketing costs to service the indirect or CEDIA market.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## nathan_h

Fair enough. 

I guess I can manually estimate on my end since you guys are pretty reliable in terms of your published gain, attenuation, and viewing angle information. 

But it will make my planning docs a little less slick.


----------



## Ellebob

blake said:


> Have you compared Neo to Dreamscreen V7 ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have not


----------



## sambow87

Quick Q for those with proscenium - I’m assuming the bottom connector and top connector need to be wired together before going into the plug to the wall mount/controller?


----------



## sambow87

Well got it all hooked up….but bad news is it seems the top motor is broken. Bottom one works fine but top one won’t move or budge at all. I tested each individually as well and top one just doesn’t move when the command is given.


----------



## bcurtis53

My first ever projector is arriving this week (JVC RS2100/NZ7) and I am trying to decide on an AT screen. I have narrowed it down to the Center Stage XD, the Enlightor NEO, and the Dreamscreen V7. We just bought a house and are having a 14’x 21.5’ finished room in the basement converted to a dedicated theater. There will be a false wall 30” from the front wall to house my LCR, so the visible room will be 14’x 19’. 

My viewing distance from the screen is 11.5-12 feet and the screen wall is 14’ wide. I want a larger 2.35 scope screen: ~140” diagonal if possible. The room will be blacked out on the ceiling/walls with black velvet on the front third of the room. 

I am looking for recommendations from those who would know what might be suitable for my room. The XD was my first choice, then my distributor said I may want to think about the dreamscreen v7 due to possible texture issues with the XD. That got me reading more and I came across the Enlightor NEO which sounds like it’s something special as well. 

Audio is very important to me and since my LCR will be behind this screen, I’d really like to get the best AT material I can afford. My concern with the NEO is that with its lower gain, my new projector struggle to light up a larger screen sufficiently. Am I overthinking this? Jon at SeymourAV has been amazing on the phone with regards to my questions but I want to hear from you guys who have these screens in your homes. Thanks for any guidance/advice you can give.


----------



## thrillcat

My previous room went from 115” XD at 11’ to UF at 10’, I can recommend either. They were both fantastic.


----------



## nathan_h

bcurtis53 said:


> Thanks for any guidance/advice you can give.


I would DEFINITELY get samples of all the materials you are considering. Only you can tell whether there is distracting weave, from your seating distance, with your eyes, in your room.

Samples will also let you see the relative brightness of each material, which you may feel is significant or a non issue.

(Personally, I'd go with the XD in your situation. Even if there are an occasional very bright section of one scene where I can see a tine texture for a second or two, the extra gain is worth it in my opinion. But if you follow my advice, you might as well also ask me whether you should have pizza or chow mein for lunch.)


----------



## bcurtis53

nathan_h said:


> I would DEFINITELY get samples of all the materials you are considering. Only you can tell whether there is distracting weave, from your seating distance, with your eyes, in your room.
> 
> Samples will also let you see the relative brightness of each material, which you may feel is significant or a non issue.
> 
> (Personally, I'd go with the XD in your situation. Even if there are an occasional very bright section of one scene where I can see a tine texture for a second or two, the extra gain is worth it in my opinion. But if you follow my advice, you might as well also ask me whether you should have pizza or chow mein for lunch.)


Good point. I have Jon sending samples of the XD and NEO. My distributor is sending the V7 sample with the projector. Should I be concerned that any of these choices might not produce a bright enough image when paired up with the JVC RS2100 in a large-ish sized 130" x 55" scope screen? Sorry, but I have no frame of reference regarding projector lumen output, screen size, and the resulting image brightness.


----------



## nathan_h

bcurtis53 said:


> reference regarding projector lumen output


To some extent, there is a measure of personal preference involved and some people use a similar output projector with a similar size screen and find it adequate. There is also the preference of whether to run in higher energy/output modes, and how much brightness you want for HDR.

All these being said, there is a calculator on projectorcentral.com which can tell you about what kind of MAX output, in high energy/output mode, when new and calibrated, your projector is likely to exhibit, based on screen size, throw distance and screen gain.

And, frankly, if your dealer is selling you both a projector and (potentially) a screen, I would hope they are using some of that profit to spend time advising you and standing behind their recommendation.

But the bottom line is that I personally would feel like XD would certainly be adequate, and some of the more modest gain screens could be okay, too (though going much below an advertised 1.0 gain would give me pause). 

You are not in the realm of crazy by any means. You are pretty much in the sweet spot for this class of projector with most normal screens.

Lot of great discussion of specific screens in this report:

* Projection Screen Material Report - AccuCal Audio & Video*


----------



## bcurtis53

nathan_h said:


> To some extent, there is a measure of personal preference involved and some people use a similar output projector with a similar size screen and find it adequate. There is also the preference of whether to run in higher energy/output modes, and how much brightness you want for HDR.
> 
> All these being said, there is a calculator on projectorcentral.com which can tell you about what kind of MAX output, in high energy/output mode, when new and calibrated, your projector is likely to exhibit, based on screen size, throw distance and screen gain.
> 
> And, frankly, if your dealer is selling you both a projector and (potentially) a screen, I would hope they are using some of that profit to spend time advising you and standing behind their recommendation.
> 
> But the bottom line is that I personally would feel like XD would certainly be adequate, and some of the more modest gain screens could be okay, too (though going much below an advertised 1.0 gain would give me pause).
> 
> You are not in the realm of crazy by any means. You are pretty much in the sweet spot for this class of projector with most normal screens.
> 
> Lot of great discussion of specific screens in this report:
> 
> *Projection Screen Material Report - AccuCal Audio & Video*


Thanks! I'm gonna go and read that thread. I appreciate it.


----------



## Technology3456

bcurtis53 said:


> Thanks! I'm gonna go and read that thread. I appreciate it.


If you're worried about light output, a 1.3 gain microperfed G4 130, or if Seymour offers it, a microperfed ambient visionaire 1.3 gain, might be worth it. You may notice no difference in the audio, while you might get 35% extra brightness or something, which could be quite noticeable. The ambient visionaire has the bonus of being an AT screen also. I've tested neither but most say the G4 130 is the best 1.3 gain screen on the market, and this reviewer claims the Seymour Ambient Visionaire 1.3 is just as good.









Seymour Ambient Visionaire Light-Rejecting Screen Review - HomeTheaterHifi.com


Thanks to high-tech projection screen materials like Seymour Screen Excellence’s new Ambient-Visionaire, movie buffs can now enjoy excellent image fidelity without sitting in total darkness.




hometheaterhifi.com







> In my tests I saw no visible differences in color, grayscale or gamma. Even the instrumented measurements were within a hair of one another. And in comparison to my reference Stewart Filmscreen StudioTek 130; brightness, black levels and contrast were so close as to also be indistinguishable. What Seymour is offering here is all the performance of the top reference-level screens with the addition of light-rejection.


On the flipside, the hotspotting in this picture looks awful. I dont know if that's just the camera though. I thought it was supposed to be unnoticeable on a 1.3 gain screen (as opposed to higher gains).









So I wouldn't jump to conclusions about it but I would try to get to the bottom of that before buying any 1.3 gain screen. But as long as it's just the camera and you wont get a hotspotting issue, then a 1.3 gain is the only way to get more brightness, and it seems to be the maximum gain that people recommend for 2D projection.


----------



## bcurtis53

Technology3456 said:


> If you're worried about light output, a 1.3 gain microperfed G4 130, or if Seymour offers it, a microperfed ambient visionaire 1.3 gain, might be worth it. You may notice no difference in the audio, while you might get 35% extra brightness or something, which could be quite noticeable. The ambient visionaire has the bonus of being an AT screen also. I've tested neither but most say the G4 130 is the best 1.3 gain screen on the market, and this reviewer claims the Seymour Ambient Visionaire 1.3 is just as good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seymour Ambient Visionaire Light-Rejecting Screen Review - HomeTheaterHifi.com
> 
> 
> Thanks to high-tech projection screen materials like Seymour Screen Excellence’s new Ambient-Visionaire, movie buffs can now enjoy excellent image fidelity without sitting in total darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hometheaterhifi.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the flipside, the hotspotting in this picture looks awful. I dont know if that's just the camera though. I thought it was supposed to be unnoticeable on a 1.3 gain screen (as opposed to higher gains).
> View attachment 3209803
> 
> 
> So I wouldn't jump to conclusions about it but I would try to get to the bottom of that before buying any 1.3 gain screen. But as long as it's just the camera and you wont get a hotspotting issue, then a 1.3 gain is the only way to get more brightness, and it seems to be the maximum gain that people recommend for 2D projection.


I'm mainly concerned out of ignorance as I've never had a projector before. From what I have been reading, the NZ7 should be just fine for a screen the size I'm looking at having. I'm going to set up the samples when they arrive and see what looks best. I have the 14' wall covered end to end (about 2.5' from the front wall) with some tablecloths I picked up at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. I'm trying to figure out what size screen will feel right as well as what material will be suitable. I will have to rely on published audio specs for the acoustic transparency since a little sample isn't going to help me figure out much as sound is related. The projector arrives tomorrow and that will have the Dreamscreen V7 sample with it. I'm hoping to receive the Seymour samples (XD, UF, and NEO) soon after.


----------



## Hawks07

bcurtis53 said:


> I'm mainly concerned out of ignorance as I've never had a projector before. From what I have been reading, the NZ7 should be just fine for a screen the size I'm looking at having. I'm going to set up the samples when they arrive and see what looks best. I have the 14' wall covered end to end (about 2.5' from the front wall) with some tablecloths I picked up at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. I'm trying to figure out what size screen will feel right as well as what material will be suitable. I will have to rely on published audio specs for the acoustic transparency since a little sample isn't going to help me figure out much as sound is related. The projector arrives tomorrow and that will have the Dreamscreen V7 sample with it. I'm hoping to receive the Seymour samples (XD, UF, and NEO) soon after.


This thread is very helpful, it even covers the acoustic properties of the screens.









[Updated 10/21/21] 31 Acoustically Transparent Screen...


[10/21/21 Update] Thank you to those that have followed along and have given such incredible feedback. Below is my updated and much improved results. More materials were added and a couple were removed. I believe many will find these results much more thorough. If you would like to jump to the...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Technology3456

bcurtis53 said:


> I'm mainly concerned out of ignorance as I've never had a projector before. From what I have been reading, the NZ7 should be just fine for a screen the size I'm looking at having. I'm going to set up the samples when they arrive and see what looks best. I have the 14' wall covered end to end (about 2.5' from the front wall) with some tablecloths I picked up at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. I'm trying to figure out what size screen will feel right as well as what material will be suitable. I will have to rely on published audio specs for the acoustic transparency since a little sample isn't going to help me figure out much as sound is related. The projector arrives tomorrow and that will have the Dreamscreen V7 sample with it. I'm hoping to receive the Seymour samples (XD, UF, and NEO) soon after.


Do you know how much brightness the NZ7 will put out when it's calibrated and you are using it in the mode you want to use it in at the throw distance you will be using it with? If you have that information, then this might help you make sure. Foot-lambert calculator · toolstud.io.

It wont let you put a 0.8 gain screen, or whatever the gain is of those AT screens are, into the calculator, but just use it at 1.0 and then multiply the foot lamberts you get out of the calculator by the gain of the screen you will use. For a 140" diagonal 2.35:1 screen, if you can get 2000 lumens, you'll be at 40.8 foot lamberts on a 1.0 screen. That would be 32.64 foot lamberts on a 0.8 gain screen. Some people are fine with a little less for HDR, some people want more, some people are happy with that. I'm in the same position as you trying to figure that out, and it's difficult to do it ahead of time because you need to have the projectors set up, and the theater blacked out, and preferrably seating installed to make it comfortable to watch a bunch of movies to see what the brightness is like at certain levels, but a lot of that is stuff I'd like to get done at the same time as installing the screen which is what's tricky about it.

With a 1.3 gain screen, you would get 53 foot lamberts from 2000 lumens. But that is not a micro-perfed 1.3 gain screen. Perforations will lower the gain, so maybe it will be 1.15 instead or something like that. In any case, the 1.3 gain screen would get you around 45 foot lamberts from 2000 lumens, while the 0.8 weave screen would get you around 32 or 33. What's the correct choice? I have no idea. Knowing the actual output of the projector is the first step towards determining that anyway.


----------



## Hawks07

It looks like at best the NZ7 might give you 1700 lumens, who knows.
If you scroll down on this link it lets you put in all the variables to see how many Ftls you will get.








Projector Calculator | Projector Screen Calculator | Aspect Ratio Calculator | Screen Size Calculator | Distance Calculator - Projector Screen | Projection Screen


With our free projector screen calculator, you can find the perfect screen size for your needs by calculating viewing distance, aspect ratio, and more. Get started today!




www.projectorscreen.com


----------



## bcurtis53

Technology3456 said:


> Do you know how much brightness the NZ7 will put out when it's calibrated and you are using it in the mode you want to use it in at the throw distance you will be using it with? If you have that information, then this might help you make sure. Foot-lambert calculator · toolstud.io.


The answer to that question would be incredibly helpful. I just don't think anyone has had the time to measure the calibrated lumen output of these yet. My projector arrives today, so I'll get a better idea of things over the coming days.


----------



## kabrumbs

Hy guys,
I will build my frame based on the amazing SMX - Simple Masking eXperience Screen Build Recipe., but with a 3 way mask. This way I can increase the image when I get better projector. The Center Stage XD with grommets is high on my list for this project. But I have some doubts:

1 - What is the real gain? 1.0? 1.2? 0.9? There are different sources with different values.
2 - I understand the screen should be tilted to avoid moiré. How big a 2.4 screen can go and still avoiding Moiré? Is the tilt projector dependent? I will be using an Epson 6050, but I want to upgrade in the future, probably JVC or Sony Laser ones. 
3 - What would be the recommended speaker distance to the screen? Is it dependent on the speaker type? Bookshelves in a baffle wall or in wall speakers? 
4 - I understand Seymour has a 4K screen, that is dimmer but smoother. If I am at 12' seating distance, what would be my trade-off going with the XD?

Thx in advance


----------



## bcurtis53

kabrumbs said:


> Hy guys,
> I will build my frame based on the amazing SMX - Simple Masking eXperience Screen Build Recipe., but with a 3 way mask. This way I can increase the image when I get better projector. The Center Stage XD with grommets is high on my list for this project. But I have some doubts:
> 
> 1 - What is the real gain? 1.0? 1.2? 0.9? There are different sources with different values.
> 2 - I understand the screen should be tilted to avoid moiré. How big a 2.4 screen can go and still avoiding Moiré? Is the tilt projector dependent? I will be using an Epson 6050, but I want to upgrade in the future, probably JVC or Sony Laser ones.
> 3 - What would be the recommended speaker distance to the screen? Is it dependent on the speaker type? Bookshelves in a baffle wall or in wall speakers?
> 4 - I understand Seymour has a 4K screen, that is dimmer but smoother. If I am at 12' seating distance, what would be my trade-off going with the XD?
> 
> Thx in advance


I just ordered my XD screen (141" 2.35:1) about a week and a half ago. I'm currently waiting for it to arrive. I can chime in on #4. I received samples of Seymour's XD, UF, Enlightor NEO, and Enlightor Bright (also had a sample of Dreamscreen V7) to test out with my new JVC RS2100 (yay!). I also sit 12' from the screen. The XD provided the brightest image for me and from my seating distance, I see no texture. The Enlightor Bright seemed indistinguishable from the XD to me. The smoothness of the NEO (and V7) material was impressive but due to my seating distance, the benefit would have been lost on me. Not to mention, they did not appear as bright to my eyes as the XD. The V7 did seem brighter than the NEO for what it worth. My favorite two samples were the XD (which I purchased) and the V7. Hope that helps.


----------



## kabrumbs

bcurtis53 said:


> Hope that helps.


 It sure does! That was my expectation: the smoothness losing value with seating distance! Nice! 1 out, 3 to go...


----------



## Hawks07

kabrumbs said:


> It sure does! That was my expectation: the smoothness losing value with seating distance! Nice! 1 out, 3 to go...


It is very subjective however. 
I sit at 12’ and I did notice the weave of the XD. It isn’t bad it’s just that I do notice it on very bright scenes. 
If you haven’t seen samples yet you really should because some people see it and some don’t at that distance.


----------



## bcurtis53

Hawks07 said:


> It is very subjective however.
> I sit at 12’ and I did notice the weave of the XD. It isn’t bad it’s just that I do notice it on very bright scenes.
> If you haven’t seen samples yet you really should because some people see it and some don’t at that distance.


Absolutely agree about it being subjective. I would urge you to order samples and see for yourself. Too big of a decision to rely on the experience of others. @kabrumbs , if you're near the Pittsburgh area, you're welcome to come by and check it out in person (after it arrives of course).


----------



## kabrumbs

bcurtis53 said:


> Absolutely agree about it being subjective. I would urge you to order samples and see for yourself. Too big of a decision to rely on the experience of others. @kabrumbs , if you're near the Pittsburgh area, you're welcome to come by and check it out in person (after it arrives of course).


I appreciate so much your offer! My company has an office in Chicago, and I will try to visit you. Because if @Hawks07 can see it at 12' that is a little worrisome.


----------



## thrillcat

kabrumbs said:


> Hy guys,
> I will build my frame based on the amazing SMX - Simple Masking eXperience Screen Build Recipe., but with a 3 way mask. This way I can increase the image when I get better projector. The Center Stage XD with grommets is high on my list for this project. But I have some doubts:
> 
> 1 - What is the real gain? 1.0? 1.2? 0.9? There are different sources with different values.
> 2 - I understand the screen should be tilted to avoid moiré. How big a 2.4 screen can go and still avoiding Moiré? Is the tilt projector dependent? I will be using an Epson 6050, but I want to upgrade in the future, probably JVC or Sony Laser ones.
> 3 - What would be the recommended speaker distance to the screen? Is it dependent on the speaker type? Bookshelves in a baffle wall or in wall speakers?
> 4 - I understand Seymour has a 4K screen, that is dimmer but smoother. If I am at 12' seating distance, what would be my trade-off going with the XD?
> 
> Thx in advance


The actual gain is 1.0, and if you spin the numbers the way the competition spins them it comes out to 1.2, I believe is the difference.
I don’t know that one. 
Speakers can go an inch or two off the screen, regardless of form factor.
I sat 11’ from XD without any issues. I switched out to UF when I moved up to 10’. 

I’m going with UF at 131” from 12’ in my new house.


----------



## Hawks07

kabrumbs said:


> I appreciate so much your offer! My company has an office in Chicago, and I will try to visit you. Because if @Hawks07 can see it at 12' that is a little worrisome.


First off, you yourself may not see or notice the weave at all. 
Reading these forums I would say that more people at 12’ cannot see the weave than people who can. 
You won’t know until you try a sample. 
Second, it really stands out more when you compare side by side with the V7. The V7 you can literally stand right in front and not see anything. 
There are trade offs though, the V7 is more expensive and not quite as bright. 
With screens it is a balancing act so hopefully you get some samples and compare.


----------



## Heath7

I may have gotten lucky, but I can't see the weave of XD at 9.5ft with JVC NX7 and 127" 16:9 screen. The weave is actually tighter on full screen than it was on the sample I compared. The UF is smoother, but the image seems dull compared to the sharper image on XD.


----------



## sambow87

After a couple months finally have the proscenium screen up and running!

Much thanks to Jon and the engineering team for walking me through the motor replacement. It is…a lesson in patience to take that thing apart!

I switched to the XD material after using UF for the last 3.5 years with my premier screen. No issues with seeing weave and it looks great. That was as big of a change as the motorized masking was, I was surprised myself.

Here it is in action:







Edit:

After a few days of using the screen and having the theater back together, Proscenium kicks ass! The motorized masking makes everything so easy. Comparing to the magnetic masking panels, the fidelio fabric can’t be seen when lights are off, looks just as good.

I haven’t seen too many posts on the proscenium here - there have been a few and they were very helpful in making my decision to get one. All I can say is I’m pretty happy with how it’s turned out. Both that and the XD material.


----------



## flyers10

Considering the UF and Neo material for close viewing distances. I will be about 7.25 to 8 feet from screen. Will both these work for that distance? 

2nd. How close to the speakers can these 2 models be? I've heard some AT screens like 6 to 12 inches which would be bad for my needs.


----------



## nathan_h

flyers10 said:


> Considering the UF and Neo material for close viewing distances. I will be about 7.25 to 8 feet from screen. Will both these work for that distance?
> 
> 2nd. How close to the speakers can these 2 models be? I've heard some AT screens like 6 to 12 inches which would be bad for my needs.


Ask Seymour for samples so you can evaluate whether they work for your eyes in your room at your distance with your projector. Don’t trust anyone else.

IIRC these screens don’t need more than an inch or two of distance.


----------



## thrillcat

flyers10 said:


> Considering the UF and Neo material for close viewing distances. I will be about 7.25 to 8 feet from screen. Will both these work for that distance?
> 
> 2nd. How close to the speakers can these 2 models be? I've heard some AT screens like 6 to 12 inches which would be bad for my needs.


Only perf screens require that much space. Woven materials are more like a speaker’s grill cloth and can be as close as 1” or so.


----------



## JeffG02

I am sure it's been asked and covered, but I am miserable at finding the correct search words to find it. 

But, I just realized that I mounted the wrong side of the screen to the front. I have NO clue how I did this. I could've sworn I double and triple checked, but today when cleaning the sides of the theater I noticed a small sticker on the very top right of the screen. It was 90% hidden by the frame. Mind you, I have been watching this screen for two months now (and been blown away). 

So, does it really matter that much? I just got through putting all my surround panels on, and having to take them down, to take the screen off doesn't sound like fun.

But, it will bug me forever if the other side of the material is "better", even if I was super happy being naive. Sigh.


----------



## JeffG02

JeffG02 said:


> I am sure it's been asked and covered, but I am miserable at finding the correct search words to find it.
> 
> But, I just realized that I mounted the wrong side of the screen to the front. I have NO clue how I did this. I could've sworn I double and triple checked, but today when cleaning the sides of the theater I noticed a small sticker on the very top right of the screen. It was 90% hidden by the frame. Mind you, I have been watching this screen for two months now (and been blown away).
> 
> So, does it really matter that much? I just got through putting all my surround panels on, and having to take them down, to take the screen off doesn't sound like fun.
> 
> But, it will bug me forever if the other side of the material is "better", even if I was super happy being naive. Sigh.


I may have answered my own question. I dug through the installation instructions and found, "Both sides of the Center Stage XD are identical, but we inspect the inside of the roll for any blemishes so using that side for the image surface is recommended."

Whew.


----------



## Tsunamijhoe

Anyone know how long Seymour customer service usually takes to answer a an email for a price quote?


----------



## nathan_h

Last time I needed a quote, I had it within a week.


----------



## MJ630

Tsunamijhoe said:


> Anyone know how long Seymour customer service usually takes to answer a an email for a price quote?


In my experience - next day. I sent a request for samples using the contact form on their website and received a response the next day. Samples in the mail that evening. Worked with Jon and order my screen last week. 

Prices of their products are available under the store link; unless you are looking for a custom size.

Hope that helps


----------



## Tsunamijhoe

MJ630 said:


> In my experience - next day. I sent a request for samples using the contact form on their website and received a response the next day. Samples in the mail that evening. Worked with Jon and order my screen last week.
> 
> Prices of their products are available under the store link; unless you are looking for a custom size.
> 
> Hope that helps


2 weeks now and no answer. I needed a total quote inc. Shipping to Europe. Gonna have to try them again then.

Got an answer today ..


----------



## StevenC56

So I'm thinking about getting a larger screen to replace my Centerstage XD retractable that is a really nice 105" scope screen. I understand selling a retractable can be difficult due to the high cost of freight shipping. Has anybody here had any luck selling their retractable when upgrading?


----------



## nathan_h

I’ve had okay luck locally using things like Craigslist. 

You are right: assume shipping means you take a bigger hit on price and possibly have headaches related to such sales. But for the right price anything can be sold.

In my case, I knew I'd lose a couple hundred bucks pricing my screen to sell locally (smaller market, fewer buyers) but then I didn't have to try to get a buyer to pay shipping, cover paypal fees, eBay fees, and deal with possible insurance claims, etc.

So it seemed like a big hit, but in terms of the bottom line, I still did better with less stress.


----------



## confinoj

I’m planning to purchase a Seymour Premier frame at ~120” (exact size TBD) in 16:9. I really like their frame design especially the AT magnetic masking panels. While I may decide at some point to swap out the material will start with XD or UF and I have found this decision really tough despite even getting larger 24”x24” samples from Seymour. I will be sitting at 9.5” (if screen is 120”) and room will be light controlled. Will be paired with an NZ7. For now I have a temp setup with an inexpensive (like $160) Elite pull down screen and a projector that we primary have used for outdoor movie nights (Epson HC-1060) so while quite bright (up to 3000 lumen) is 1080p and has rather poor black levels and contrast. I know Seymour and most others say 9.5ft is way too close for XD but I haven’t found it that clear cut. My vision is good and just got updated glasses so 20/20 now. I put the Epson in eco mode and an more accurate picture mode so light output may be closer to the JVC. If I concentrate on panning bright scenes yes I can see that there is some slight texture to the material but I wouldn’t say it’s distracting in any way, at least not on the 24”x24” sample. In the majority of content I probably wouldn’t notice but don’t know how I would feel on a full screen. The XD is clearly brighter than the UF (actually brighter than the elite non AT screen it’s taped to). The UF as expected is smooth and dimmer but certainly fine for SDR. What I don’t know is if it will be bright enough for HDR. Not sure if it’s just me but it almost appears to have more contrast and a bit more natural appearing. I also don’t know how this would compare on an actual NZ7 and won’t have one for a while yet. I’m wondering if weave will be more noticeable on 4k content with smaller pixels. I know this is totally a subjective and personal call but I am surprised how difficult it is to choose. I had my kids eval as well (12,8,8) They initially leaned toward the XD but then ultimately slightly preferred the UF. Maybe that’s a good enough reasons as any to choose it.


----------



## thrillcat

confinoj said:


> I’m planning to purchase a Seymour Premier frame at ~120” (exact size TBD) in 16:9. I really like their frame design especially the AT magnetic masking panels. While I may decide at some point to swap out the material will start with XD or UF and I have found this decision really tough despite even getting larger 24”x24” samples from Seymour. I will be sitting at 9.5” (if screen is 120”) and room will be light controlled. Will be paired with an NZ7. For now I have a temp setup with an inexpensive (like $160) Elite pull down screen and a projector that we primary have used for outdoor movie nights (Epson HC-1060) so while quite bright (up to 3000 lumen) is 1080p and has rather poor black levels and contrast. I know Seymour and most others say 9.5ft is way too close for XD but I haven’t found it that clear cut. My vision is good and just got updated glasses so 20/20 now. I put the Epson in eco mode and an more accurate picture mode so light output may be closer to the JVC. If I concentrate on panning bright scenes yes I can see that there is some slight texture to the material but I wouldn’t say it’s distracting in any way, at least not on the 24”x24” sample. In the majority of content I probably wouldn’t notice but don’t know how I would feel on a full screen. The XD is clearly brighter than the UF (actually brighter than the elite non AT screen it’s taped to). The UF as expected is smooth and dimmer but certainly fine for SDR. What I don’t know is if it will be bright enough for HDR. Not sure if it’s just me but it almost appears to have more contrast and a bit more natural appearing. I also don’t know how this would compare on an actual NZ7 and won’t have one for a while yet. I’m wondering if weave will be more noticeable on 4k content with smaller pixels. I know this is totally a subjective and personal call but I am surprised how difficult it is to choose. I had my kids eval as well (12,8,8) They initially leaned toward the XD but then ultimately slightly preferred the UF. Maybe that’s a good enough reasons as any to choose it.


In a light controlled room the UF will be great, though I’d also say I’m with you in that I was sitting about 10’ from my XD screen and thought it was fine.
Keep in mind that you are comparing two (three, actually) different gain materials with the same projector settings, so of course the lower gain will look darker. Once you calibrate the JVC specifically to the UF you’ll have plenty of gain, and the XD would look blown out comparatively.


----------



## confinoj

thrillcat said:


> In a light controlled room the UF will be great, though I’d also say I’m with you in that I was sitting about 10’ from my XD screen and thought it was fine.
> Keep in mind that you are comparing two (three, actually) different gain materials with the same projector settings, so of course the lower gain will look darker. Once you calibrate the JVC specifically to the UF you’ll have plenty of gain, and the XD would look blown out comparatively.


Thanks. Leaning towards UF at the moment. I know some may prefer other materials that are maybe less of a compromise (like soundmax 4k and V7) but will stick to Seymour discussion in this thread. You can’t purchase their frames without their materials anyway so might as well live with it for a while before making any further decisions and spending more.


----------



## pixphipau

I was offered some uf material without the frame, if seymour dont sell just frames thats a bit of a blow.


----------



## confinoj

pixphipau said:


> I was offered some uf material without the frame, if seymour dont sell just frames thats a bit of a blow.


Yes you can purchase Seymour material on its own just not the frame on its own. That being said I believe most of the cost is for the frame and shipping and the material is a much smaller percentage of the overall cost.


----------



## pettso

Does anyone on here have a metro screen with masking panels? Seymour reps mentioned that the panels can/will crush the velvet on the screen over time. Curious to see if anyone has experience and/or pictures of what this looks like. Also curious why this isn't an issue for the Premiere frame, how do the panels attach to it? 

Of the fixed screens, the metro makes most sense for me since I'm height constrained (soffit right above the screen) and want to have a bit more space between screen material and wall (~1.45" for metro frame vs. ~0.65" for Premiere). 

Btw, I have to say I've been very impressed with the level of service (response times, details) and from all of the happy customers in this thread (plus good looking samples) I'm sure I'll be very impressed with the final product as well.


----------



## StevenC56

Anyone switch from a Seymour XD screen to a UF? I'm looking into a larger retractable than I currently have which is a 2.35 105" wide XD. I like the idea of the finer weave on the UF, but I'm concerned with the gain reduction.


----------



## nathan_h

According to third party measurements it’s about a 23% loss in gain. 

You could probably counteract that by changing projector settings. For example, you could turn your jvc from low to high laser if you have already maxed out the iris, or open the iris about seven steps if you are already on high laser and have the room. (Seven steps was about the number to get that much more brightness on the earlier models. I am not sure about the NZ series.)

So you may have the room, given that you have a relatively bright projector and a relatively small screen. 

I think it’s a nicer fabric especially at shorter distances if you have the horsepower to illuminate it well. I had the EN4K in a 8 foot wide screen and it looked great. But I could not have gone any larger and had enough output for hdr.


----------



## chandu6119

Hi ,I am planning for 142inch diagonal 16:9 screen with masking panels for 2.39 format. with 11.5 feet for for the front row ,it will be around 49 degree viewing angle. room dimension are 15feet w*21feet l*10feet H.my projector is Sony vw665es 1800lumens 4k projector.

my question is, shall i go for diy solid screen(glacier white),xd or uf screen? i am using madvr for hdr playblack and aiming to get around 30fl on screen Dolby cinema standard brightness for hdr. with low budget at screen (spandex-0.7gain) it will be difficult to achieve for 142inch. Seymour screens are little brighter, but they are costlier(500$ for xd including shipping for India) and i don't want to have relatively less sharp image than a solid screen. I am a photographer and cinematographer, so any image quality issues(less brightness, less sharpness, moiré, seeing weaves) compared to budget solid screens will be not be acceptable for me. budget solid screens like carl's place flexi white 1.1 gain or locally made 1.1 cine white matte screen can be done for below 150$. only drawback of going with solid screens are that my center channel will be below the screen. I am using Sony sscs8 center speaker. I can aim it to ear level from below the screen.as shown in the render

so shall i go with at screens(xd or uf) or with solid screens? any sharpness difference between these 3?i have already ordered for samples from Seymour. cost is also an important factor for me.

prices including shipping to India is 520$ for xd screen and 320$ for uf screen. i can save 45$ if i don't want tilted cut for uf screen. is tilted cut required for uf screen?


----------



## nathan_h

chandu6119 said:


> i have already ordered for samples from Seymour.


Since you have ordered samples, you can tell us whether you see a difference in sharpness between them, in your room, with your eyes, with your projector, at your seating distance.

At that distance I don’t think you have to worry about texture or sharpness, but you shouldn’t trust other folks opinions with the decision. Opinions can help you narrow your choices to the best candidates.

——

The samples will also let you test whether you can achieve the brightness you seek. I had a similar projector, and an eight foot wide Seymour en4k screen (similar to UF) and when calibrated I could not get 30ftl even with a new lamp in high power mode. In other words I have a smaller screen, in a black bad cave, and could reach your goal.

So you should definitely test with the sample.

——

As to whether to go with a solid screen: some people don’t mind the center channel being outside the screen area. You can test the audio impact of this without the screen. Just place the center speaker in the various places and listen to content.

You have a wide two row theater planned so a horizontal center below the screen has two problems. You’ll get some less than idea sound for people sitting in those side seats. And it will be hard to aim it well for row two, placement above the screen can help with the latter issue.

If you place the center behind the screen, you may want to consider trading your horizontal center for a vertical center that matches your left and right speaker.

—

tldr Seymour XD is the closest woven A.T. Screen to what you want but be careful to test the sample material throughly since it may not meet all your requirements (since no woven AT screen May do so). And even before you get the screen you can test speaker placement options.


----------



## chandu6119

nathan_h said:


> Since you have ordered samples, you can tell us whether you see a difference in sharpness between them, in your room, with your eyes, with your projector, at your seating distance.
> 
> At that distance I don’t think you have to worry about texture or sharpness, but you shouldn’t trust other folks opinions with the decision. Opinions can help you narrow your choices to the best candidates.
> 
> ——
> 
> The samples will also let you test whether you can achieve the brightness you seek. I had a similar projector, and an eight foot wide Seymour en4k screen (similar to UF) and when calibrated I could not get 30ftl even with a new lamp in high power mode. In other words I have a smaller screen, in a black bad cave, and could reach your goal.
> 
> So you should definitely test with the sample.
> 
> ——
> 
> As to whether to go with a solid screen: some people don’t mind the center channel being outside the screen area. You can test the audio impact of this without the screen. Just place the center speaker in the various places and listen to content.
> 
> You have a wide two row theater planned so a horizontal center below the screen has two problems. You’ll get some less than idea sound for people sitting in those side seats. And it will be hard to aim it well for row two, placement above the screen can help with the latter issue.
> 
> If you place the center behind the screen, you may want to consider trading your horizontal center for a vertical center that matches your left and right speaker.
> 
> —
> 
> tldr Seymour XD is the closest woven A.T. Screen to what you want but be careful to test the sample material throughly since it may not meet all your requirements (since no woven AT screen May do so). And even before you get the screen you can test speaker placement options.


if you could not able to achieve 30fl even with 8feet width screen, then maybe the real gain is around 0.65-68?

ya will test the speaker placement. I am worried whether the image quality downgrades compared to a solid screen which i am using now (in regards of gain, sharpness and texture)

i am planning to use the center speaker in vertical configuration if I go the at route.


----------



## nathan_h

I guess I don't have a solid way to measure the gain objectively. I can just tell you what a professional calibrator was able to achieve in my room with an RS500 which is similar in output to the class of your projector.

I have seen tests that show the UF in that range (assuming that a stewart 1.0 is considered accurate, and it usually is) when tested the same way as a stewart 1.0 screen. And that's actually better than many other screens when objectively tested. 

The XD is brighter. 

Your own testing will help you decide on the tradeoffs. PixelHT has published detailed tests on their web site that you may find interesting to read, while you await your samples for your own test.


----------



## chandu6119

nathan_h said:


> I guess I don't have a solid way to measure the gain objectively. I can just tell you what a professional calibrator was able to achieve in my room with an RS500 which is similar in output to the class of your projector.
> 
> I have seen tests that show the UF in that range (assuming that a stewart 1.0 is considered accurate, and it usually is) when tested the same way as a stewart 1.0 screen. And that's actually better than many other screens when objectively tested.
> 
> The XD is brighter.
> 
> Your own testing will help you decide on the tradeoffs. PixelHT has published detailed tests on their web site that you may find interesting to read, while you await your samples for your own test.


yes i have read that report. I am more concerned after reading the pixelht report. the accucal review shows real world gain of uf as 0.8 whereas in this report its gain is 0.65. why is there so much difference?


----------



## nathan_h

It's hard to say, but in general, I would rely on comparing screens via a single test set. Even so, it makes it hard to compare the results completely and draw an absolute conclusion.

But if a .15 gain difference is make or break, you are flying too close to the tolerances. You can make up that difference by moving your projector closer to the screen (for example).

In any event, in both cases you would max out about 23 ftl when in high lamp mode and calibrated with a screen your proposed size with a 1.0 gain screen, so it would be worth planning for that.









Sony VPL-VW665ES Projection Calculator - Throw Distance and Screen Size


Find screen size and throw distance for the Sony VPL-VW665ES projector.



www.projectorcentral.com





Many people successfully tone map HDR via MADVR with that kind of output. I think what it means is you probably need to replace your lamp after each 1000 hours of viewing, to keep in the desired light output range, and you may prefer to have a solid screen instead of a woven screen. But each way is a tradeoff only you can decide and you have done the right thing by ordering some screen samples so you can see and measure them in your own room. (Remember to use black backing material when testing the AT screens, to get the best image possible out of them.)


----------



## chandu6119

Ya only on manufacturer spec i can reach 30fl.many reviews rate my projector lose around 100lumens in calibrated mode (1700lumens).so if i could reach around 27fl it would be great for hdr using madvr.so trying to get every amount of gain possible without having any weave problem


----------



## N8DOGG

I just ordered a 135" XD with the masking panels.
I got to see one locally and man, their masking solution is really nice! I'm about 11.5 feet away, I currently have a 1.3 CWMP Severtson screen, which is great but man, I really wanted that masking system lol. The guy's screen I saw was around 10-11 feet and you could kind see the weave I guess? Lol I had thought about the UF material bit that would be dropping too much brightness vs what I have now, which I love. 
I made some DIY masking panels but now that I re-did my front ends look, I really wanted the AT masking system.
Customer service was great, answered all my questions within a day each time. 

They said they are having frame material shortages and we're unsure when I'd get the screen but it's not as if I don't already have one. Hopefully not too long!


----------



## StevenC56

I sure wish they would come out with a finer weave material like the UF, but with a gain around 1.0. They say there's nothing in the works at this time. I'm just afraid of how much I'd give up going from the XD to the UF. My screen is a retractable, and I'd sure like to go bigger but the only 2 choices are the XD and UF.


----------



## mrpikwik

I'm debating whether I should go with the CenterStage XD or UF AT material. I'll be sitting between 10' and 11' from the screen, and think I may be able to see the texture of the XD - and that would really bother me! So - it feels like a safer bet to go with the UF screen.


----------



## StevenC56

mrpikwik said:


> I'm debating whether I should go with the CenterStage XD or UF AT material. I'll be sitting between 10' and 11' from the screen, and think I may be able to see the texture of the XD - and that would really bother me! So - it feels like a safer bet to go with the UF screen.


I have an XD retractable right now and sit right at 12.5' from the screen. 10-11' is pretty much where the weave disappears. I'm trying to sell my screen so I can get a larger one, but the lower gain of the UF has me concerned.


----------



## Heath7

I was in the same boat comparing XD, UF, and a couple other samples from other companies. Already had a spandex diy to tape samples to. I found the XD to be sharper, as well as brighter. Kind of counterintuitive that a tighter weave UF or spandex would look softer than the XD. Decided on XD material at 9.5 ft viewing distance with 127" 16x9. Very happy with results.


----------



## StevenC56

Heath7 said:


> I was in the same boat comparing XD, UF, and a couple other samples from other companies. Already had a spandex diy to tape samples to. I found the XD to be sharper, as well as brighter. Kind of counterintuitive that a tighter weave UF or spandex would look softer than the XD. Decided on XD material at 9.5 ft viewing distance with 127" 16x9. Very happy with results.


My wife and I both noticed the UF looks softer using the samples they sent. I'm really surprised they aren't working on a better material closer to their Screen Excellence Enlightor Neo to replace the UF.


----------



## nathan_h

mrpikwik said:


> I'm debating whether I should go with the CenterStage XD or UF AT material. I'll be sitting between 10' and 11' from the screen, and think I may be able to see the texture of the XD - and that would really bother me! So - it feels like a safer bet to go with the UF screen.


Definitely get samples of both, to compare with your eyes, in your room, with your projector, from your seating distance. 

You are in the range where some people have no trouble seeing issues and some people can't see any issues at all -- and for some people the issues are with the UF (not bright enough, too soft) and for some people the issues are with the XD (visible pattern), and for some people neither is different enough to worry about.


----------



## nathan_h

StevenC56 said:


> Screen Excellence Enlightor Neo to replace the UF


My guess is that since they are different different markets, with two different price points and two different sales channels -- one for the DIY world (SeymourAV) and one for the Custom Installer world (Seymour Screen Excellence) -- that this is not an apples-for-apples comparision.

There is also roughly a 2x price difference, the last time I inquired, between the two lineups. I would be surprised if they bring out a consumer direct screen with the performance of the SSE Enlightor Neo at the price of the SAV UF.

I mean, I wouldn't complain! I had a EN4K screen from their custom installer channel in my last theater (though, frankly, the only way I could afford it was buying used).


----------



## StevenC56

nathan_h said:


> My guess is that since they are different different markets, with two different price points and two different sales channels -- one for the DIY world (SeymourAV) and one for the Custom Installer world (Seymour Screen Excellence) -- that this is not an apples-for-apples comparision.
> 
> There is also roughly a 2x price difference, the last time I inquired, between the two lineups. I would be surprised if they bring out a consumer direct screen with the performance of the SSE Enlightor Neo at the price of the SAV UF.
> 
> I mean, I wouldn't complain! I had a EN4K screen from their custom installer channel in my last theater (though, frankly, the only way I could afford it was buying used).


Well, their Enlightor Bright is almost the same as the XD so I've heard, so I don't see why they couldn't come up with something close to the Neo for their Seymour AV line.


----------



## flyers10

nathan_h said:


> My guess is that since they are different different markets, with two different price points and two different sales channels -- one for the DIY world (SeymourAV) and one for the Custom Installer world (Seymour Screen Excellence) -- that this is not an apples-for-apples comparision.
> 
> There is also roughly a 2x price difference, the last time I inquired, between the two lineups. I would be surprised if they bring out a consumer direct screen with the performance of the SSE Enlightor Neo at the price of the SAV UF.
> 
> I mean, I wouldn't complain! I had a EN4K screen from their custom installer channel in my last theater (though, frankly, the only way I could afford it was buying used).


Did you ever compare your en4k to UF to see if worth the price difference?


----------



## nathan_h

flyers10 said:


> Did you ever compare your en4k to UF to see if worth the price difference?


I did not but I should have. I may be wrong but I suspect the UF wasn’t available at the time.

However since I got the en4k used with frame for a lower price than a new screen from seymourAV direct sales line I felt pretty confident in my choice.


----------



## nathan_h

StevenC56 said:


> Well, their Enlightor Bright is almost the same as the XD so I've heard, so I don't see why they couldn't come up with something close to the Neo for their Seymour AV line.


Interesting. The samples don’t look very similar to me. But sometimes seeing it up close is different from I use.


----------



## StevenC56

nathan_h said:


> Interesting. The samples don’t look very similar to me. But sometimes seeing it up close is different from I use.


I don't have a sample of the Enlightor Bright, but both the XD and the Bright are coated woven material with 12' as the recommended viewing distance. Also, I asked Seymour to send me a sample of the bright, and they told me the XD was almost the same look and gain wise but cost half as much, so there wasn't any good reason to have a sample if it.


----------



## mrpikwik

nathan_h said:


> Definitely get samples of both, to compare with your eyes, in your room, with your projector, from your seating distance.
> 
> You are in the range where some people have no trouble seeing issues and some people can't see any issues at all -- and for some people the issues are with the UF (not bright enough, too soft) and for some people the issues are with the XD (visible pattern), and for some people neither is different enough to worry about.


I got samples of both XD and UF (and black backing) and tested both today; here is my opinion: 

My sister and I could see the texture of both materials from 10' away; we could see the texture of the XD material more, especially during bright white scenes. However - we noticed such a significant improvement in the gain with the XD material that it would be absolutely worth seeing slightly more texture occasionally for the significant improvement in brightness. Thus - I'm going with the XD material (and black backing). 

Thanks for you suggestions!


----------



## StevenC56

mrpikwik said:


> I got samples of both XD and UF (and black backing) and tested both today; here is my opinion:
> 
> My sister and I could see the texture of both materials from 10' away; we could see the texture of the XD material more, especially during bright white scenes. However - we noticed such a significant improvement in the gain with the XD material that it would be absolutely worth seeing slightly more texture occasionally for the significant improvement in brightness. Thus - I'm going with the XD material (and black backing).
> 
> Thanks for you suggestions!


This is pretty much our findings as well. We have a 105" wide scope XD retractable right now. We want to get a 118" wide 2:38. Looking at UF and Enlightor Neo samples yielded a softer dimmer picture. I think we will go with the XD again.


----------



## stephenbr

When Seymour advises of a 30inch 'drop' for a retractable screen does that measurement include the height of the case or is it only the measurement of screen material from the bottom of the case to the top of the 'usable/viewing' portion of the screen?


----------



## scottyb

i"s it only the measurement of screen material from the bottom of the case to the top of the 'usable/viewing' portion of the screen?"

This is the correct answer.


----------



## stephenbr

scottyb said:


> i"s it only the measurement of screen material from the bottom of the case to the top of the 'usable/viewing' portion of the screen?"
> 
> This is the correct answer.


Thx scootyb - Seymour AV let me know very quickly too


----------



## Rodzilla

Has anyone done a comparison of the XD against a Silver Ticket WVS? I'm looking at a viewing distance of just under 11' and am worried about the weave... I've heard the silver ticket is much tighter and also has a higher gain. Was hoping someone in here might have experience with each.


----------



## nathan_h

They are different but I'm not sure everyone would agree about which is preferable. Luckily, Seymour will send you a sample for free, and Silver ticket for a small shipping charge. Totally worth it for peace of mind.


----------



## Chesterwhipplefilter

Heath7 said:


> I was in the same boat comparing XD, UF, and a couple other samples from other companies. Already had a spandex diy to tape samples to. I found the XD to be sharper, as well as brighter. Kind of counterintuitive that a tighter weave UF or spandex would look softer than the XD. Decided on XD material at 9.5 ft viewing distance with 127" 16x9. Very happy with results.


We went with the UF and kind of regret it. Our first row is about 9 ft or so and while you don't see any weave, it definitely is soft and doesn't have the sharpness I want. For a long time while waiting for our order, we had a cheap $10 Amazon screen up and honestly I think the picture was better with that (but of course wasn't AT). I may have to start over with the Neo at some point. We didn't like the weave of the XD but perhaps we were so focused on that we ignored the other benefits and in real life application, it wouldn't be noticeable.


----------



## nathan_h

Chesterwhipplefilter said:


> We went with the UF and kind of regret it. Our first row is about 9 ft or so and while you don't see any weave, it definitely is soft and doesn't have the sharpness I want. For a long time while waiting for our order, we had a cheap $10 Amazon screen up and honestly I think the picture was better with that (but of course wasn't AT). I may have to start over with the Neo at some point. We didn't like the weave of the XD but perhaps we were so focused on that we ignored the other benefits and in real life application, it wouldn't be noticeable.


That's unfortunate. The good news is that these screens are coveted on the used market. If you are in a metropolitan area where you can find a local buyer, all the better.

Sometimes, even when looking at samples, in your own home, with your own content, in your own room, with your own eyes, it can be hard to know completely how you will feel when the full size screen is in place. Usually the samples are enough. But clearly, as your case demonstrates, not always.

I'll admit that in most of the theater spaces I have created for myself over the years, I haven't lived with a single screen in it the whole time. 

PixelHT has done an exhaustive study of screens at https://pixelht.com/25-acoustically-transparent-screen-materials-reviewed-and-measured/ that you might find interesting or useful. For example, he has a section where he evaluates "sharpness" for 31 different screens, including most that you are likely interested in.

Of course, sharpness when your nose is up close to the screen itself is not what matters most, so figuring out what actually matters when at your seating position may be the most critical way to look at it.

(And nothing comes for free: You may look at these pictures and decide the microperf is the sharpest......but then you have to take a look at how the audible issues with microperf necessitate at least a foot of space between speaker and screen before they begin to approach the transparency of many woven screens.)


----------



## thrillcat

Chesterwhipplefilter said:


> We went with the UF and kind of regret it. Our first row is about 9 ft or so and while you don't see any weave, it definitely is soft and doesn't have the sharpness I want. For a long time while waiting for our order, we had a cheap $10 Amazon screen up and honestly I think the picture was better with that (but of course wasn't AT). I may have to start over with the Neo at some point. We didn't like the weave of the XD but perhaps we were so focused on that we ignored the other benefits and in real life application, it wouldn't be noticeable.


Buying the fabric is the least expensive part. Just order a piece of XD and swap it out.


----------



## nathan_h

thrillcat said:


> Buying the fabric is the least expensive part. Just order a piece of XD and swap it out.


Thats a good point. And you they can probably sell the UF material to recoup some of the cost.


----------



## Chesterwhipplefilter

thrillcat said:


> Buying the fabric is the least expensive part. Just order a piece of XD and swap it out.





nathan_h said:


> Thats a good point. And you they can probably sell the UF material to recoup some of the cost.


OK, you've both given me the kick in the pants I needed and I just reached out to Seymour to get a quote on swapping the fabric. I put up a sample piece of the XD I had from before my original order and can definitely see a difference in brightness and sharpness. I think I was initially so focused on the texture, I ignored the rest of the considerations (a real forest through the trees situation!)

If anyone is looking for some UF fabric in the greater DC area, I may have some available soon!


----------



## N8DOGG

Can anyone take a pic or 2 of how their masking system fits? I got my screen today (the frame and screen are great!) put up the masking system and..... It looks awful lol. None of the corners are straight and it all just fits janky. It just kinda hangs there. And since the pieces are not square, it's going to wreck the frame in the sides where the magnets are at some point if I use it a lot.
My old styrafoam ones I made for my other screen fit and looked better.....I did email them to see what they say but I'm having 15 ppl over tonight for some audio fun and literally only bought the screen for the masking system.... Lol

Just curious if anyone else's are similar.


----------



## N8DOGG

I should also note, sitting 12 feet from the screen and can see absolutely 0 hint of the weave on the XD. I was a bit worried as it was a blind purchase but the very heavy duty frame and screen are excellent IMO. I don't feel as if I lost too much brightness vs the Severtson material.
Once I get the masking system looking/fitting better, I think I will be pretty happy with the purchase.


----------



## Rodzilla

Deleted... Lol wrong thread


----------



## mrpikwik

I can't find the o-rings that were supposed to come with the screen. Maybe I lost them? I'm sure Seymour would send me more but can someone tell me what size they are or if I can buy them at a store?


----------



## chriscmore

mrpikwik said:


> I can't find the o-rings that were supposed to come with the screen. Maybe I lost them? I'm sure Seymour would send me more but can someone tell me what size they are or if I can buy them at a store?


They would have been in a bag in the accessories box which is about 5x5x6. Contact Jon or Jess and they'll send you a replacement set. You can't get them at a store because they are custom made.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## scottyb

chriscmore said:


> They would have been in a bag in the accessories box which is about 5x5x6. Contact Jon or Jess and they'll send you a replacement set. You can't get them at a store because they are custom made.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I already helped him Mr. Chris!!


----------



## mrpikwik

FYI - I used these hair ties I found at the Dollar Tree. They seem to work very well for a cheap temporary way to attach the screen to the frame.


----------



## thrillcat

mrpikwik said:


> I can't find the o-rings that were supposed to come with the screen. Maybe I lost them? I'm sure Seymour would send me more but can someone tell me what size they are or if I can buy them at a store?


The bag they’re in upon delivery is one of these.


----------



## jsil

Found someone selling a Seymour 109" diagonal Matinée Silver non-AT screen. Just need to know if that's a good match for JVC X590R in a family room set up, thanks.


----------



## chriscmore

jsil said:


> Found someone selling a Seymour 109" diagonal Matinée Silver non-AT screen. Just need to know if that's a good match for JVC X590R in a family room set up, thanks.


That'd be a good screen for some limited light, or even more if the projector is in a hotter mode for sports. For nighttime viewing, I'd dial it down though, as that's a lot of gain for a modest size at night. Finally, set up the projector as long-throw as possible for best uniformity and contrast.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## jsil

Thanks for the reply. What other screen would you recommend for my set-up. The room has dark gray walls with black out curtains. There is some light coming from the kitchen window in the day, but at night it gets dark in the room. The projector is about 13-14' away from my 115" Silver Ticket screen.


----------



## chriscmore

jsil said:


> Thanks for the reply. What other screen would you recommend for my set-up. The room has dark gray walls with black out curtains. There is some light coming from the kitchen window in the day, but at night it gets dark in the room. The projector is about 13-14' away from my 115" Silver Ticket screen.


It could depend on your priorities and preferences. If you're mostly using it at night and prioritize black levels, then a lower gain screen would be better. If you're using it somewhat in the day and prioritize high average picture levels, then that screen would be the choice.

It's good that you have some prior experience, as you can then judge the size change, and how the overall gain behaves for you in different conditions.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## flyers10

@chriscmore how is the UF for a 7.25' view distance and how does it compare to Dreamscreen v6/v7 and the Stewart Harmony G2?


----------



## chriscmore

flyers10 said:


> @chriscmore how is the UF for a 7.25' view distance and how does it compare to Dreamscreen v6/v7 and the Stewart Harmony G2?


In price and your close-viewing application, I would recommend Seymour-Screen Excellence's Enlightor-Neo material.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## flyers10

chriscmore said:


> In price and your close-viewing application, I would recommend Seymour-Screen Excellence's Enlightor-Neo material.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks. If wanting to save money would the UF still work?


----------



## nathan_h

flyers10 said:


> Thanks. If wanting to save money would the UF still work?


I'd say it's borderline. But you can tell pretty quickly about your own eyes with a free sample.


----------



## chriscmore

Travis from AV Nirvana is going live with his review of the Proscenium motorized masking screen in a few hours. 🥳

*SeymourAV Proscenium Motorized Masking Screen*

Chreers,
Chris


----------



## steve0742003

I am considering doing a false wall and upgrading my screen 120 to a 150 inch DIY Frame and using the Center Stage XD material. While using the XD material do people generally use black spandex or a speaker cloth material behind the XD screen? My speakers are black and I plan on adding some insulation on the back wall as well. I have also read it can improve contrast as well?


----------



## N8DOGG

steve0742003 said:


> I am considering doing a false wall and upgrading my screen 120 to a 150 inch DIY Frame and using the Center Stage XD material. While using the XD material do people generally use black spandex or a speaker cloth material behind the XD screen? My speakers are black and I plan on adding some insulation on the back wall as well. I have also read it can improve contrast as well?


I tried with and without. I couldnt tell any difference pq wise but behind my screen is pitch black.
SQ wise, maybe? Lol I never took any REW measurements but it was not enough any room eq couldnt easily take care of.


----------



## nathan_h

Truth. I didn’t find it necessary when everything behind the screen was black already. I’d be more worried about using a screen that large. I know people like to call xd an almost neutral gain screen, and it is much better than most other woven screens, but 150” if pushing it for many projectors especially if you are trying to do hdr.


----------



## steve0742003

nathan_h said:


> Truth. I didn’t find it necessary when everything behind the screen was black already. I’d be more worried about using a screen that large. I know people like to call xd an almost neutral gain screen, and it is much better than most other woven screens, but 150” if pushing it for many projectors especially if you are trying to do hdr.


I am currently running an Epson 5040. Plan is to eventually upgrade to an LS12000 so hopefully no issues in the brightness department with that one. Also in a 100% light controlled room.


----------



## confinoj

I have my Seymour premier frame but have not unboxed it as room is not ready yet. I'm trying to calculate precise screen to eyes distance. When mounted how far off the wall is the actual screen material? It looks like it may be off the wall by a small amount but can't tell for sure.


----------



## thrillcat

confinoj said:


> I have my Seymour premier frame but have not unboxed it as room is not ready yet. I'm trying to calculate precise screen to eyes distance. When mounted how far off the wall is the actual screen material? It looks like it may be off the wall by a small amount but can't tell for sure.


About an inch or so. Not by much.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

Hi guys.
I am about to purchase a Legacy 2.35 screen Glacier white. I compared samples with the st130 and they look so similar that I was wondering if is just my eyes or if others feel the same.


----------



## mpa4712

Anyone have a closeup of the Glacier Grey PS? I ordered samples of both the Glacier Grey PS and Glacier White PS and the white does seem perfectly smooth. The Glacier Grey PS has quite a bit of texture though:










I did reach out to Seymour and asked if the side with the writing, as in my picture above, was the viewing side and they said yes. This just doesn't seem perfectly smooth to me and my Samsung LSP9T has tons of laser speckle with the textured side of the Glacier Grey, but if I use the other side, which is smooth, there is almost no laser speckle.


----------



## hulkss

I ordered another Seymour AV retractable screen. I keep going bigger as projectors get more pixels and more light output. This time it's a 140" wide 2.37:1 aspect ratio, the largest retractable screen from Seymour AV that rolls up into their excellent extruded aluminum case. It's also the widest I can fill with my projector lens positioned 17 feet from the screen. I sit at 11 feet from the screen. Maybe I'm done upgrading screens now. I have pretty good light control in the theater room and we have long dark winters here.

I looked at Neo, UF, and XD materials. Neo and UF are soft cloth with less gain and an image that appears slightly softer than XD. In my house with occasional kids and pets I like the durability of XD with its vinyl coated threads. I've rolled up and squished a few bugs in my current XD screen resulting in no permanent stain marks. My cat can touch XD without getting claws stuck in the material (I said touch it, not rip on it).

I like the diffuse 1.0 gain of XD for even brightness, the sharpness of the projected images, and the great acoustic properties for speakers close behind it.

It is a unique material that's in-between woven fabric and perforated vinyl. I put a piece of XD on a light table and took a close-up photo of it with a pen point for reference. As you can see there are lots and lots of really tiny openings through the very precision weave. A 4K pixel, on a 140" wide screen is WAY bigger than the openings. The threads seem to be bonded where they cross. At my 11 foot viewing distance, this material appears smooth to my 20-20 eyes and will deliver the best image out of any projector.


----------



## DavidK442

Very detailed and helpful review. Thanks


----------



## chriscmore

We showed off a prototype of a new product at last week's MWAVE.
RetroMasks





Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

chriscmore said:


> We showed off a prototype of a new product at last week's MWAVE.
> RetroMasks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hi Chris!
Very interesting for sure. I should be joining the Seymour family soon with a Glacier White screen. Cant wait!


----------



## StevenC56

chriscmore said:


> We showed off a prototype of a new product at last week's MWAVE.
> RetroMasks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hey Chris! I've been asking you about retrofit side masks for my XD retractable for over 10 years now. Any chance this will work on your retractables?


----------



## marantz545

chriscmore said:


> We showed off a prototype of a new product at last week's MWAVE.
> RetroMasks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris



There’s been a giant market need for this. I am honestly surprised no one else has come up with a manufactured solution until now. Good on you!


----------



## Tsunamijhoe

chriscmore said:


> We showed off a prototype of a new product at last week's MWAVE.
> RetroMasks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


This looks promising. Would it work with my Stewart CIMA Neve tabtension? Or is it only for fixed frame screens?


----------



## chriscmore

Tsunamijhoe said:


> This looks promising. Would it work with my Stewart CIMA Neve tabtension? Or is it only for fixed frame screens?


We intended to just work with fixed frame screens. Since we always do custom stuff, if you think we can mount the appx 2.5" diameter case under the retractable case, then we could possibly have something for you.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

StevenC56 said:


> Hey Chris! I've been asking you about retrofit side masks for my XD retractable for over 10 years now. Any chance this will work on your retractables?


Hi Steven -

I hope so. Contact us and let's noodle on it.

(Sorry about taking 10 years. 😬)

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Tsunamijhoe

chriscmore said:


> We intended to just work with fixed frame screens. Since we always do custom stuff, if you think we can mount the appx 2.5" diameter case under the retractable case, then we could possibly have something for you.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


It could be done.. Where there is a will, there is a way ;-).. The opening in the case is quite large,so one could make some sort of hook locking system.. Running electrics to it on the other hand might prove challenging..
I am contemplating wether i should finally take the plunge and go for a fixed frame, as i am a bit tired of the hour glass tab tension tends to have..

Thank you for the answer though


----------



## Par

hulkss said:


> I ordered another Seymour AV retractable screen. I keep going bigger as projectors get more pixels and more light output. This time it's a 140" wide 2.37:1 aspect ratio, the largest retractable screen from Seymour AV that rolls up into their excellent extruded aluminum case. It's also the widest I can fill with my projector lens positioned 17 feet from the screen. I sit at 11 feet from the screen. Maybe I'm done upgrading screens now. I have pretty good light control in the theater room and we have long dark winters here.
> 
> I looked at Neo, UF, and XD materials. Neo and UF are soft cloth with less gain and an image that appears slightly softer than XD. In my house with occasional kids and pets I like the durability of XD with its vinyl coated threads. I've rolled up and squished a few bugs in my current XD screen resulting in no permanent stain marks. My cat can touch XD without getting claws stuck in the material (I said touch it, not rip on it).
> 
> I like the diffuse 1.0 gain of XD for even brightness, the sharpness of the projected images, and the great acoustic properties for speakers close behind it.
> 
> It is a unique material that's in-between woven fabric and perforated vinyl. I put a piece of XD on a light table and took a close-up photo of it with a pen point for reference. As you can see there are lots and lots of really tiny openings through the very precision weave. A 4K pixel, on a 140" wide screen is WAY bigger than the openings. The threads seem to be bonded where they cross. At my 11 foot viewing distance, this material appears smooth to my 20-20 eyes and will deliver the best image out of any projector.
> 
> View attachment 3309978


Last week I ordered a 16X9 150" retractable Seymour screen, but I can't decide on XD or UF. I prefer the XD because it just seems way more durable, I do have samples of both, but the salesman told me it wouldn't lay as flat as the UF and would have waves in it, I dread the thought of that on such a large screen. My seating is about 11'-12' also...do you notice any waves in yours? Also, can any type of masking be added to the retractable screen for wide aspect movies? My PJ is a Sony VPL885es laser, I consider it pretty high end? I have to go retractable because I don't have a dedicated room and the screen has to come down in front of my LG OLED and my speakers. I went 16X9 because my favorite thing to watch is music videos and let's face it wide aspect movies will still be pretty darn big on a 150" screen!


----------



## StevenC56

Par said:


> Last week I ordered a 16X9 150" retractable Seymour screen, but I can't decide on XD or UF. I prefer the XD because it just seems way more durable, I do have samples of both, but the salesman told me it wouldn't lay as flat as the UF and would have waves in it, I dread the thought of that on such a large screen. My seating is about 11'-12' also...do you notice any waves in yours? Also, can any type of masking be added to the retractable screen for wide aspect movies? My PJ is a Sony VPL885es laser, I consider it pretty high end? I have to go retractable because I don't have a dedicated room and the screen has to come down in front of my LG OLED and my speakers. I went 16X9 because my favorite thing to watch is music videos and let's face it wide aspect movies will still be pretty darn big on a 150" screen!


This seems to be the predicament for all of us retractable owners. I have an 11 year old 105" wide 2.35 XD retractable and would like to go larger. I got samples just like you, and although Seymour keeps recommending the UF I just can't get myself to do it. Less durable, lower gain, and it softens the picture structure VS the XD.


----------



## hulkss

Par said:


> Last week I ordered a 16X9 150" retractable Seymour screen, but I can't decide on XD or UF. I prefer the XD because it just seems way more durable, I do have samples of both, but the salesman told me it wouldn't lay as flat as the UF and would have waves in it, I dread the thought of that on such a large screen. My seating is about 11'-12' also...do you notice any waves in yours? Also, can any type of masking be added to the retractable screen for wide aspect movies? My PJ is a Sony VPL885es laser, I consider it pretty high end? I have to go retractable because I don't have a dedicated room and the screen has to come down in front of my LG OLED and my speakers. I went 16X9 because my favorite thing to watch is music videos and let's face it wide aspect movies will still be pretty darn big on a 150" screen!


Be sure to test view that tall image height. I did, and we could not stand to watch over 60" tall at 11-12 feet back. Like you, I watch mostly concert videos. Most of them are poorly made with scene cuts every few seconds. All that jumping around can get tiring if the screen is too tall. On the other hand, too wide is generally not a viewing problem. I really like a constant height image set-up and concerts are being released on wide screen a little more often now. Do buy what you like best.

If your room is mostly dark and you go constant height, nobody notices the bars way out at the sides and the projector is not projecting black there. If you go constant width, the black bars are top and bottom with a widescreen (movie) image. They are in the center of view so you notice them more and the projector is projecting on the black bars which, with some projectors, will make the bars more noticeable.

When you compare UF to XD side by side it is unfair to the UF. For a proper compare the UF needs to have 25% more light on it. 

Here's a pic of my 4 year old 120" wide XD retractable. It really hangs flat. Keep in mind you can't roll it up part way. The tab tensioning only works properly with it all the way out to the designed drop position. It's not as perfectly flat as a rigid frame screen, but, I certainly can not see any waves, distortion, or focus problems in it. The tiny waves at the edge are only in the black felt material which is not tensioned, it covers the tabs and forms the border.


----------



## StevenC56

25% is giving up quite a bit.


----------



## Par

Thanks for the advice! I'm 99% sure on XD now, I've been using a 110" 16X9 (Not Seymour) for many years and the WOW factor is gone for me. I mostly watch music videos on YouTube, I love the fast-moving visuals with the music, and like you said a lot of it is going wide screen now. The other major reason for the screen change is I needed to get my left and right speakers lower and the center higher, I have it set up that way now and it's a noticeable change! I also plan on concealing the left and right edges of the screen when its down, so I don't have to look at the tensioning system anymore. THANK YOU!


----------



## thrillcat

StevenC56 said:


> 25% is giving up quite a bit.


Not if you've got it to spare.


----------



## hulkss

thrillcat said:


> Not if you've got it to spare.


I looked at the brightness issue considering an Epson projector with a Laser Phosphor light engine.
Below is the time (from Epson) that it takes the light engine to degrade to 50% light output if set at various brightness (laser power) levels from day 1:









Below is the time (from Epson) that the projector can maintain constant brightness (laser power is increased over time to maintain constant light output) if set at various brightness levels from day 1.









On this projector, 70% is the "quiet mode setting. I can run there with XD, get the brightness I want for my room with an accurate color image setting, and get 19000 hours of use.

If I bought UF material I would be up at 85% or more brightness (laser power) and get less than 6000 hours life. I just TRIPLED my projectors life and reduced the noise level by using XD instead of UF in my application.


----------



## StevenC56

thrillcat said:


> Not if you've got it to spare.


You're still giving it up, even if you have it to spare as you say.


----------



## hulkss

StevenC56 said:


> You're still giving it up, even if you have it to spare as you say.


The less bright material (UF) can help a little with contrast if you have significant ambient or reflected screen light in the room. You do have to be willing to pay the price for projector output to maintain brightness.


----------



## StevenC56

hulkss said:


> The less bright material (UF) can help a little with contrast if you have significant ambient or reflected screen light in the room. You do have to be willing to pay the price for projector output to maintain brightness.


Didn't see anything positive in my setup with the UF except that the weave isn't visible like the XD which I can see with large white area's in the picture at around 10 feet. Even my wife said the UF dimmed the picture and made it look soft and less focused compared to the XD.


----------



## hulkss

StevenC56 said:


> Didn't see anything positive in my setup with the UF except that the weave isn't visible like the XD which I can see with large white area's in the picture at around 10 feet. Even my wife said the UF dimmed the picture and made it look soft and less focused compared to the XD.


Yes, UF will dim the picture, you must turn up the lumens output by 25% to get the same brightness as XD. Then make a comparison at equal screen brightness. As mentioned above, there is a price to pay for more lumens.


----------



## chriscmore

Par said:


> Last week I ordered a 16X9 150" retractable Seymour screen, but I can't decide on XD or UF. I prefer the XD because it just seems way more durable, I do have samples of both, but the salesman told me it wouldn't lay as flat as the UF and would have waves in it, I dread the thought of that on such a large screen. My seating is about 11'-12' also...do you notice any waves in yours? Also, can any type of masking be added to the retractable screen for wide aspect movies? My PJ is a Sony VPL885es laser, I consider it pretty high end? I have to go retractable because I don't have a dedicated room and the screen has to come down in front of my LG OLED and my speakers. I went 16X9 because my favorite thing to watch is music videos and let's face it wide aspect movies will still be pretty darn big on a 150" screen!


For that close a viewing, I'd knock the size down a notch and go with the UF. You're at 50 degrees wide viewing, which is a bit beyond guidelines. 

If you can push your seats back a foot or otherwise want a 50 degree wide image and want to keep that large a size, I'd probably go with the XD. Personal preferences overrule guidelines any day.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Ralph Potts

Greetings,

I recently added a Seymour A/V retractable screen to my reference review system. The am now running dual screens. I have a fixed frame 16:9 Stewart Studiotek 130 G3 with a horizontal masking system and, wanted to add a scope screen. I am limited in how wide I can go. Watching scope content masked on the Studiotek gave me a 92" diagonal image. I wanted something larger without giving up the current image size for non-scope viewing. A retractable screen that would drop down in front of the Studoitek for scope films seemed like the ticket.

Seymour's reputation for quality screens at a reasonable price had my attention so, I reached out. I was in touch with the staff at Seymour and after some discussion acquired samples of the XD and UF material. I wanted the 100" wide 2.35 retractable screen which would increase my scope image from "92" diagonal to just under 110". The XD was the material I opted for.

The screen arrived and I integrated it into the system. The difference when watching scope material isn't subtle. I am impressed with the quality of the woven screen material which has excellent uniformity. Brightness and sharpness isn't an issue. I use the JVC NZ7 4K laser front projector and as with the Stewart, the combination simply rocks without visible artifacts etc. My throw distance is at the shorter end. I have two rows of seating, the front row is 10.5 feet and the weave in the material is not visible.

@chriscmore and his team are to be commended. Every question/concern I had was answered promptly/professionally and the product I received met expectations based on the samples received.

I am pleased to add the Seymour to my review system and look forward to viewing more content.


Regards,


----------



## chriscmore

Ralph, what do you mean by the sentence "I use the JVC NZ7 4K laser front projector and as with the Stewart, the combination simply rocks with visible artifacts etc." Simply rocks is good, but visible artifacts is bad. 

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## flyers10

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I wanted the 100" wide 2.35 retractable screen which would increase my scope image from "92" diagonal to just under 110".


Ralph, why did you choose a 2.35 vs a 2.39 or 2.40 screen?


----------



## Ralph Potts

chriscmore said:


> Ralph, what do you mean by the sentence "I use the JVC NZ7 4K laser front projector and as with the Stewart, the combination simply rocks with visible artifacts etc." Simply rocks is good, but visible artifacts is bad.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Greetings,

It should have read ‘without’ visible artifacts. It reads correctly now. 😎

Regards,


----------



## Ralph Potts

flyers10 said:


> Ralph, why did you choose a 2.35 vs a 2.39 or 2.40 screen?



Greetings,

Simply a matter of preference. I felt it better fit my needs. There's certainly no right or wrong so, everyone has the option.

Regards,


----------



## nathan_h

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I recently added a Seymour A/V retractable screen to my reference review system. The am now running dual screens. I have a fixed frame 16:9 Stewart Studiotek 130 G3 with a horizontal masking system and, wanted to add a scope screen. I am limited in how wide I can go. Watching scope content masked on the Studiotek gave me a 92" diagonal image. I wanted something larger without giving up the current image size for non-scope viewing. A retractable screen that would drop down in front of the Studoitek for scope films seemed like the ticket.
> 
> Seymour's reputation for quality screens at a reasonable price had my attention so, I reached out. I was in touch with the staff at Seymour and after some discussion acquired samples of the XD and UF material. I wanted the 100" wide 2.35 retractable screen which would increase my scope image from "92" diagonal to just under 110". The XD was the material I opted for.
> 
> The screen arrived and I integrated it into the system. The difference when watching scope material isn't subtle. I am impressed with the quality of the woven screen material which has excellent uniformity. Brightness and sharpness isn't an issue. I use the JVC NZ7 4K laser front projector and as with the Stewart, the combination simply rocks without visible artifacts etc. My throw distance is at the shorter end. I have two rows of seating, the front row is 10.5 feet and the weave in the material is not visible.
> 
> @chriscmore and his team are to be commended. Every question/concern I had was answered promptly/professionally and the product I received met expectations based on the samples received.
> 
> I am pleased to add the Seymour to my review system and look forward to viewing more content.
> 
> 
> Regards,


Thanks for the update. 

Did you go with a woven screen because at this width your speakers are behind the screen? (I think your 16:9 screen is not acoustically transparent?)


----------



## N8DOGG

When does the auto masking system go on sale?


----------



## Ralph Potts

nathan_h said:


> Thanks for the update.
> 
> Did you go with a woven screen because at this width your speakers are behind the screen? (I think your 16:9 screen is not acoustically transparent?)



Greetings,

Nope. Since it's a retractable I wanted options going forward and really liked the properties of the XD screen material.

Regards,


----------



## Ralph Potts

N8DOGG said:


> When does the auto masking system go on sale?



Greetings,

It doesn't...  


Regards,


----------



## Par

chriscmore said:


> For that close a viewing, I'd knock the size down a notch and go with the UF. You're at 50 degrees wide viewing, which is a bit beyond guidelines.
> 
> If you can push your seats back a foot or otherwise want a 50 degree wide image and want to keep that large a size, I'd probably go with the XD. Personal preferences overrule guidelines any day.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


It’s ordered and paid for! I’m sticking with the 150 XD and will try to move seating back a couple feet if I can but since most movies are wide screen I think it will be perfect! Some 16X9 viewing might be a bit much for some but I think it’s going to be awesome! Can’t wait to get it!


----------



## nathan_h

N8DOGG said:


> When does the auto masking system go on sale?


Do you mean:

When will it be available for purchase? 

Or do you mean:

When will it be available at a discount? 

I think you mean the former, but the phrase “go on sale” colloquially means “be available at a discount” to many people in the US, so maybe you mean the latter.


----------



## chriscmore

mpa4712 said:


> Anyone have a closeup of the Glacier Grey PS? I ordered samples of both the Glacier Grey PS and Glacier White PS and the white does seem perfectly smooth. The Glacier Grey PS has quite a bit of texture though:
> 
> View attachment 3308323
> 
> 
> I did reach out to Seymour and asked if the side with the writing, as in my picture above, was the viewing side and they said yes. This just doesn't seem perfectly smooth to me and my Samsung LSP9T has tons of laser speckle with the textured side of the Glacier Grey, but if I use the other side, which is smooth, there is almost no laser speckle.


Sorry I didn't reply to this post. I looked into it and confirmed that the sample you got was from an older batch of material. The Glacier Gray is literally a tinted version of the Glacier White and will work well with UST. If you want a new sample, let me know.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## N8DOGG

nathan_h said:


> Do you mean:
> 
> When will it be available for purchase?
> 
> Or do you mean:
> 
> When will it be available at a discount?
> 
> I think you mean the former, but the phrase “go on sale” colloquially means “be available at a discount” to many people in the US, so maybe you mean the latter.


Going on sale is a pretty common term meaning when is it available for purchase.... I don't know about the US but that's pretty common phrase here in Canada. I heard it and used it 30 times today phoning about orders I'm waiting for in Canada, US and Britain. Everyone knew exactly what it meant and answered accordingly.


----------



## fatherom

N8DOGG said:


> Going on sale is a pretty common term meaning when is it available for purchase.... I don't know about the US but that's pretty common phrase here in Canada. I heard it and used it 30 times today phoning about orders I'm waiting for in Canada, US and Britain. Everyone knew exactly what it meant and answered accordingly.


Wow. I’m from Canada and disagree with this. 

How do you say “when will it be available at a discount”? Every Canadian tire ad I get in the mail says “sale” for discounts.


----------



## N8DOGG

fatherom said:


> Wow. I’m from Canada and disagree with this.
> 
> How do you say “when will it be available at a discount”? Every Canadian tire ad I get in the mail says “sale” for discounts.


So I guess when you buy anything from anywhere and your receipt reads "sale" that means you got it for a discount? Lol.


----------



## fatherom

N8DOGG said:


> So I guess when you buy anything from anywhere and your receipt reads "sale" that means you got it for a discount? Lol.


No, but the question is valid...if "on sale" means "it can now be purchased", what do you say when someone says "this product is on sale this weekend"? (meaning, it's at a discounted price). I'm legit asking how you differentiate between the two.

For me, "for sale" means "it can now be purchased".



https://users.wpi.edu/~nab/sci_eng/99_May_3.html#:~:text=For%20sale%2C%20offered%20to%20be,buy%20it%20at%20a%20discount


.


----------



## nathan_h

N8DOGG said:


> Going on sale is a pretty common term meaning when is it available for purchase.... I don't know about the US but that's pretty common phrase here in Canada. I heard it and used it 30 times today phoning about orders I'm waiting for in Canada, US and Britain. Everyone knew exactly what it meant and answered accordingly.


I guess I misunderstood. The only answer I saw was "never."



Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> It doesn't...
> 
> 
> Regards,


And I can only assume that that refers to a discount type sale, not that Seymour has developed a masking system that they plan to never sell to anyone.


----------



## N8DOGG

fatherom said:


> No, but the question is valid...if "on sale" means "it can now be purchased", what do you say when someone says "this product is on sale this weekend"? (meaning, it's at a discounted price). I'm legit asking how you differentiate between the two.
> 
> For me, "for sale" means "it can now be purchased".
> 
> 
> 
> https://users.wpi.edu/~nab/sci_eng/99_May_3.html#:~:text=For%20sale%2C%20offered%20to%20be,buy%20it%20at%20a%20discount
> 
> 
> .





fatherom said:


> No, but the question is valid...if "on sale" means "it can now be purchased", what do you say when someone says "this product is on sale this weekend"? (meaning, it's at a discounted price). I'm legit asking how you differentiate between the two.
> 
> For me, "for sale" means "it can now be purchased".
> 
> 
> 
> https://users.wpi.edu/~nab/sci_eng/99_May_3.html#:~:text=For%20sale%2C%20offered%20to%20be,buy%20it%20at%20a%20discount
> 
> 
> .


Context my man. A lost art apparently lol


----------



## fatherom

N8DOGG said:


> Context my man. A lost art apparently lol


Exactly, context is key. You had three people just on this one page alone not sure to what you were referring. Ralph, Nathan, and me...if you're communicating, and most people aren't understanding you well, then you're not communicating effectively (regardless of your own convictions).


----------



## Ralph Potts

Greetings,

I think it's safe to say that this latest discussion has reached its conclusion. Let's not continue to bog this thread down and, let's kindly get back on the topic of its subject. Thanks! 


Regards,


----------



## StevenC56

Anyone here using one of the double roller scope masking retractables?


----------



## stephenbr

StevenC56 said:


> Anyone here using one of the double roller scope masking retractables?


I am.


----------



## StevenC56

stephenbr said:


> I am.


Sent you a PM.


----------



## va_lemon

Anyone here have the Seymour Proscenium Masking Frame? Does the base control for the powered masking use RF 433MHZ for the remote control? I’m trying to figure out if the remote signal could be learned by a RF learning module and integrated with a home automation system.

I checked with Seymour support and did not get a definitive answer. They were otherwise very responsive with other questions.

I’m hoping one of y’all can check your remotes or the receiver box for any labeling that may indicate the signal type.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## thrillcat

va_lemon said:


> Anyone here have the Seymour Proscenium Masking Frame? Does the base control for the powered masking use RF 433MHZ for the remote control? I’m trying to figure out if the remote signal could be learned by a RF learning module and integrated with a home automation system.
> 
> I checked with Seymour support and did not get a definitive answer. They were otherwise very responsive with other questions.
> 
> I’m hoping one of y’all can check your remotes or the receiver box for any labeling that may indicate the signal type.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Ive not had any luck getting it programmed into the Harmony Elite, but I’ve admittedly not spent much time trying. The remote does indicate 433MHz on the bottom, though. Let us know if you find a solution.


----------



## hulkss

I just received my new retractable XD screen with 140" wide by 59" tall viewing area (2.37 aspect ratio).

I did quite a bit of reading on optimum viewing angles. I came to the conclusion that the only reasons to mount a theater screen up high are: 1) to see over people in front of you; 2) to accommodate a ceiling mounted projector with limited lens shift range; 3) to be above some obstacle in your room.

The optimum (natural) gaze angle is downward, as in the recommendations for computer monitor positioning. You can recline some to bring the angle up towards horizontal.










I only have one row of seating 11 feet from the screen, so, I dropped the screen as low as possible. Seated eye level is close to mid-screen. All I can say is WOW. This is much better than I expected. You get the feeling while viewing that you could just get up from your seat and walk into the action on the screen. It's so very natural looking. I should have done this long ago.










I should mention, Seymour packages shipments very well, however, FedEx did come close to damaging the shipment (they can wreck anything). They tore through the edge protectors, the outer and inner boxes, and the bubble wrap. There was just a small rub mark on the back (wall) side of the extruded housing. I transferred the screen package to my boat trailer as the 40' semi could not get down and out of my dead-end street:


----------



## StevenC56

That's messed up. Did you contact Seymour about the damage? That screen height seems awful low, but that is huge screen. From your seated position with your head straight ahead measure from you eye height down to the floor. The center of your screen should be no lower than that.


----------



## hulkss

StevenC56 said:


> That's messed up. Did you contact Seymour about the damage? That screen height seems awful low, but that is huge screen. From your seated position with your head straight ahead measure from you eye height down to the floor. The center of your screen should be no lower than that.


The screen was not damaged, as I wrote: just a small rub mark on the the back side of the housing (towards the wall).

Seated eye height is right at screen center (33 inches from the floor). The screen is no way too low and the opinion of viewers is that it is much more "real" looking and immersive than a screen that is raised up. Like I stated, it feels like you can walk into it. When watching a concert, it's like you are on the stage with the band.


----------



## StevenC56

hulkss said:


> The screen was not damaged, as I wrote: just a small rub mark on the the back side of the housing (towards the wall).
> 
> Seated eye height is right at screen center (33 inches from the floor). The screen is no way too low and the opinion of viewers is that it is much more "real" looking and immersive than a screen that is raised up. Like I stated, it feels like you can walk into it. When watching a concert, it's like you are on the stage with the band.


If you like it that low, that's all that matters. I would still let Seymour know about the damage to the box.


----------



## hulkss

StevenC56 said:


> If you like it that low, that's all that matters. I would still let Seymour know about the damage to the box.


The low screen bottom edge gives the impression in many scenes, that the ground plane in the projected image, is an extension of the floor in the theater.


----------



## StevenC56

hulkss said:


> The low screen bottom edge gives the impression in many scenes that the ground plane in the projected image is an extension of the floor in the theater.


I've seen a lot of HT pictures, but this is the first I can recall setup like yours. Then again quite a few have more than 1 row of seating and use risers for the rows behind the most forward, so that's probably why.


----------



## nathan_h

va_lemon said:


> Anyone here have the Seymour Proscenium Masking Frame? Does the base control for the powered masking use RF 433MHZ for the remote control? I’m trying to figure out if the remote signal could be learned by a RF learning module and integrated with a home automation system.
> 
> I checked with Seymour support and did not get a definitive answer. They were otherwise very responsive with other questions.
> 
> I’m hoping one of y’all can check your remotes or the receiver box for any labeling that may indicate the signal type.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Seymour gave me the option of, I think, three different remote control and or motor technology choices when discussing a retractable screen with them.


----------



## nathan_h

hulkss said:


> I just received my new retractable XD screen with 140" wide by 59" tall viewing area (2.37 aspect ratio).
> 
> I did quite a bit of reading on optimum viewing angles. I came to the conclusion that the only reasons to mount a theater screen up high are: 1) to see over people in front of you; 2) to accommodate a ceiling mounted projector with limited lens shift range; 3) to be above some obstacle in your room.
> 
> The natural optimum (natural) gaze angle is downward, as in the recommendations for computer monitor positioning. You can recline some to bring the angle up towards horizontal.
> 
> View attachment 3321639
> 
> 
> I only have one row of seating 11 feet from the screen, so, I dropped the screen as low as possible. Seated eye level is close to mid-screen. All I can say is WOW. This is much better than I expected. You get the feeling while viewing that you could just get up from your seat and walk into the action on the screen. It's so very natural looking. I should have done this long ago.
> 
> View attachment 3321643
> 
> 
> I should mention, Seymour packages shipments very well, however, FedEx did come close to damaging the shipment (they can wreck anything). They tore through the edge protectors, the outer and inner boxes, and the bubble wrap. There was just a small rub mark on the back (wall) side of the extruded housing. I transferred the screen package to my boat trailer as the 40' semi could not get down and out of my dead-end street:
> 
> View attachment 3321646


Cool. I agree most people place their screens higher than I would like. Eyes close to center tends to feel the most immersive to me.

Its hard to get a sense of scale with your photo. I would guess it is slightly less tall than an average person?


----------



## va_lemon

thrillcat said:


> Ive not had any luck getting it programmed into the Harmony Elite, but I’ve admittedly not spent much time trying. The remote does indicate 433MHz on the bottom, though. Let us know if you find a solution.
> 
> View attachment 3321634


Thank you for this! I’m still in planning and research phase so was trying to figure out how best to integrate the screen with an IP based home automation system. There are a few options I can think of but until I get the screen, I won’t be able to experiment.

One option would be to try and use a RF bridge like Bond or Broadlink. One limitation here could be that this remote uses rolling or encrypted RF codes. Although based on some quick searching, I see folks have been able to record this remote (it is a common RF remote used for shades) using some scanner software and replay to control their shades. So there is hope.

The other option would be to either replace the control box with a relay which is in turn controlled by a smart switch or use a device like a Shelly or Sonof and solder wires to the control points in the wall switch. Then we can control using an app or integrate with a home automation system like Home Assistant or even Apple HomeKit. Another user on these forums did something similar for a retractable screen:
Projector Screen with Sonoff Smart Relay

Lets see if anyone else on here has attempted any of the above!


----------



## hulkss

nathan_h said:


> Cool. I agree most people place their screens higher than I would like. Eyes close to center tends to feel the most immersive to me.
> 
> Its hard to get a sense of scale with your photo. I would guess it is slightly less tall than an average person?


The top of the projected area is 5’ 3” high.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

Oh wow I thought the whole idea of Freight shipping was to avoid this! But then agan, leave it to Fedex to find ways to mess things up. My Seymour luckily arrived in perfect shape. Sorry about yours :/


----------



## thrillcat

va_lemon said:


> Thank you for this! I’m still in planning and research phase so was trying to figure out how best to integrate the screen with an IP based home automation system. There are a few options I can think of but until I get the screen, I won’t be able to experiment.
> 
> One option would be to try and use a RF bridge like Bond or Broadlink. One limitation here could be that this remote uses rolling or encrypted RF codes. Although based on some quick searching, I see folks have been able to record this remote (it is a common RF remote used for shades) using some scanner software and replay to control their shades. So there is hope.
> 
> The other option would be to either replace the control box with a relay which is in turn controlled by a smart switch or use a device like a Shelly or Sonof and solder wires to the control points in the wall switch. Then we can control using an app or integrate with a home automation system like Home Assistant or even Apple HomeKit. Another user on these forums did something similar for a retractable screen:
> Projector Screen with Sonoff Smart Relay
> 
> Lets see if anyone else on here has attempted any of the above!


Like someone else mentioned above, they do have a couple different options when you purchase, but the higher end option has been hard to come by due to manufacturer and supply chain issues. Seymour has a new, higher end solution on the drawing board that reportedly will offer much more flexibility.
For me personally I don’t need to add smart features, I just want it in my Harmony (or whatever it’s replaced with) for single-button macro with my projector lens memory, etc.


----------



## confinoj

I hope this post doesn't offend Seymour but hoping for a little guidance for my situation. I really wanted a Seymour frame with the magnetic masking but will be sitting too close for XD material and while UF may be fine wanted a higher gain material. So I purchased both the Seymour Premiere frame (16x9, 105" wide) with UF plus Dreamscreen V7 material to retrofit. The V7 material comes with grip rails but the channel in the Seymour frame isn't sized well for it. I could glue it but instead going to just put grommets in the V7 and utilize the o-ring system the frame is designed for. Turns out with a grommet kit off Amazon it's rather easy to do. I just want to make sure tension is appropriate. I figured I would just cut the V7 to the same size as the UF and match the grommet positions. I didn't know however if the UF is sized according to its stretch or not. I would say that V7 stretches a little more than XD but certainly not as much as UF. The V7 is also thicker so has a little more weight to it. Any thoughts? Anyone with experience with these frames and materials? Thanks.


----------



## thrillcat

confinoj said:


> I hope this post doesn't offend Seymour but hoping for a little guidance for my situation. I really wanted a Seymour frame with the magnetic masking but will be sitting too close for XD material and while UF may be fine wanted a higher gain material. So I purchased both the Seymour Premiere frame (16x9, 105" wide) with UF plus Dreamscreen V7 material to retrofit. The V7 material comes with grip rails but the channel in the Seymour frame isn't sized well for it. I could glue it but instead going to just put grommets in the V7 and utilize the o-ring system the frame is designed for. Turns out with a grommet kit off Amazon it's rather easy to do. I just want to make sure tension is appropriate. I figured I would just cut the V7 to the same size as the UF and match the grommet positions. I didn't know however if the UF is sized according to its stretch or not. I would say that V7 stretches a little more than XD but certainly not as much as UF. The V7 is also thicker so has a little more weight to it. Any thoughts? Anyone with experience with these frames and materials? Thanks.


XD requires a bit more pulling to make sure it doesn't have waves or wrinkles. UF is designed more to just hang than to be stretched.

The more you stretch any material, the worse it's going to perform, because the stretch opens up the weave, creating gaps in the projection surface. You want to keep the weave as tight and natural as possible to maintain a flat surface. Seymour's materials are rated acoustically at a predetermined stretch amount, or lack thereof. Who knows what this other fabric is rated for. I personally went with UF for the acoustic properties and tight weave and I'm making up the gain with my projector without issue.

I'd suggest doing the top edge of your off-brand material, mounting the screen, and seeing what it looks like. If it needs to be stretched to lay flat, stretch as little as possible. If it hangs flat and smooth, then add grommets spaced just tight enough to keep the material from moving when you open doors or walk past it, unless the off-brand material manufacturer requires a specific stretch to open up the weave for acoustic reasons.


----------



## va_lemon

thrillcat said:


> Like someone else mentioned above, they do have a couple different options when you purchase, but the higher end option has been hard to come by due to manufacturer and supply chain issues. Seymour has a new, higher end solution on the drawing board that reportedly will offer much more flexibility.
> For me personally I don’t need to add smart features, I just want it in my Harmony (or whatever it’s replaced with) for single-button macro with my projector lens memory, etc.


Seymour did provide me pricing as well for one step up option which would add full RS232 capability but it would add a good chunk of change to the price.
Like you, I just need to be able to add the control to my remote control so it can be operated in a macro with the projector lens memory. The remote I‘m looking at (YIO v2) can integrate IR and network devices so I was exploring any option that could allow the screen mask to be controlled from that remote. 
I’m still a couple of months away from getting the screen but will report back on any solution I come up with.


----------



## nathan_h

thrillcat said:


> I personally went with UF for the acoustic properties and tight weave and I'm making up the gain with my projector without issue.


I think this is the key.

At seating distances where one could see the weave of the XD one is usually sitting close enough that the screen size is going to be small enough that the lower gain of the UF is usually appropriate with modern projectors (eg, 2000 lumens machines) instead of the XD.

For a larger screen where one needs more gain one is usually sitting further away, ie, one is usually far enough away that the XD weave is not particularly visible.

Obviously there is some overlap in the transition distance of 10 feet where one has to prioritize one or the other approach, and for people outside the 50 degree field of view target, it can go either way, depending on which direction they are outside. Then, other variables like moving the projector closer to screen (which can be a 25% increase in light output in some machines) can be a useful part of the equation.

These factors won't solve every situation. But I can see how Seymour is thinking about use cases and the market.


----------



## confinoj

thrillcat said:


> XD requires a bit more pulling to make sure it doesn't have waves or wrinkles. UF is designed more to just hang than to be stretched.
> 
> The more you stretch any material, the worse it's going to perform, because the stretch opens up the weave, creating gaps in the projection surface. You want to keep the weave as tight and natural as possible to maintain a flat surface. Seymour's materials are rated acoustically at a predetermined stretch amount, or lack thereof. Who knows what this other fabric is rated for. I personally went with UF for the acoustic properties and tight weave and I'm making up the gain with my projector without issue.
> 
> I'd suggest doing the top edge of your off-brand material, mounting the screen, and seeing what it looks like. If it needs to be stretched to lay flat, stretch as little as possible. If it hangs flat and smooth, then add grommets spaced just tight enough to keep the material from moving when you open doors or walk past it, unless the off-brand material manufacturer requires a specific stretch to open up the weave for acoustic reasons.


Thanks. Dreamscreen had this to say: "There´s not a massive amount of tension in the v7, but there is some. I would probably recommend adding a little tiny bit of added tension when installing the grommets." So a little vague but at least some guidance. Do you know if Seymour actually cuts the XD and UF to different sizes for the same size frame or the o-ring system applies enough tension to both at the same size. If they use the same size for both then I think it would probably be fine just matching the size/grommet pattern.


----------



## thrillcat

va_lemon said:


> Seymour did provide me pricing as well for one step up option which would add full RS232 capability but it would add a good chunk of change to the price.
> Like you, I just need to be able to add the control to my remote control so it can be operated in a macro with the projector lens memory. The remote I‘m looking at (YIO v2) can integrate IR and network devices so I was exploring any option that could allow the screen mask to be controlled from that remote.
> I’m still a couple of months away from getting the screen but will report back on any solution I come up with.


I'm also watching the YIO, I was a NEEO Kickstarter backer and I loved it, but they didn't quite finish it before selling it off to C4, so I moved to the Harmony. Not completely thrilled with it but it's functional and will hold me over. I'm waiting to see the YIO before deciding between that and the C4 version of the NEEO.

I will say that Chris is very receptive to this sort of project, and if we can scan the remotes he's using, he'll provide them to YIO for inclusion in their database.


----------



## chriscmore

confinoj said:


> Thanks. Dreamscreen had this to say: "There´s not a massive amount of tension in the v7, but there is some. I would probably recommend adding a little tiny bit of added tension when installing the grommets." So a little vague but at least some guidance. Do you know if Seymour actually cuts the XD and UF to different sizes for the same size frame or the o-ring system applies enough tension to both at the same size. If they use the same size for both then I think it would probably be fine just matching the size/grommet pattern.


We cut the UF smaller for just the right amount of stretch in the final installation. You can still match the grommet pattern, as the stretch is minor. We keep the frame post formula the same so that folks can later swap between all materials.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

va_lemon said:


> Anyone here have the Seymour Proscenium Masking Frame? Does the base control for the powered masking use RF 433MHZ for the remote control? I’m trying to figure out if the remote signal could be learned by a RF learning module and integrated with a home automation system.
> 
> I checked with Seymour support and did not get a definitive answer. They were otherwise very responsive with other questions.
> 
> I’m hoping one of y’all can check your remotes or the receiver box for any labeling that may indicate the signal type.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


We can confirm that the Bond product will learn our RF remote. They're releasing a new Bond Pro that has additional capacities and we'll have them in stock.

The Proscenium's base wall switch power supply also has some features in it we'll be discussing later. 

The advantage of having a simple-wired motor (2-wire in the case of Proscenium, 4-wire in the case of retractable) is that they'll be able to use upgraded controls later on. We're not sure if we'll have something to show off at CEDIA but we're trying.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## confinoj

chriscmore said:


> We cut the UF smaller for just the right amount of stretch in the final installation. You can still match the grommet pattern, as the stretch is minor. We keep the frame post formula the same so that folks can later swap between all materials.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks so much Chris. I appreciate the assistance. Then I'll plan on just cutting the material to the same size as the suppled UF. My room finishes up next week and very excited to get the frame assembled and mounted. The magnetic masking panels are really cool.


----------



## chriscmore

hulkss said:


> I just received my new retractable XD screen with 140" wide by 59" tall viewing area (2.37 aspect ratio).
> 
> I did quite a bit of reading on optimum viewing angles. I came to the conclusion that the only reasons to mount a theater screen up high are: 1) to see over people in front of you; 2) to accommodate a ceiling mounted projector with limited lens shift range; 3) to be above some obstacle in your room.
> 
> The optimum (natural) gaze angle is downward, as in the recommendations for computer monitor positioning. You can recline some to bring the angle up towards horizontal.
> 
> View attachment 3321639
> 
> 
> I only have one row of seating 11 feet from the screen, so, I dropped the screen as low as possible. Seated eye level is close to mid-screen. All I can say is WOW. This is much better than I expected. You get the feeling while viewing that you could just get up from your seat and walk into the action on the screen. It's so very natural looking. I should have done this long ago.
> 
> View attachment 3321643
> 
> 
> I should mention, Seymour packages shipments very well, however, FedEx did come close to damaging the shipment (they can wreck anything). They tore through the edge protectors, the outer and inner boxes, and the bubble wrap. There was just a small rub mark on the back (wall) side of the extruded housing. I transferred the screen package to my boat trailer as the 40' semi could not get down and out of my dead-end street:
> 
> View attachment 3321646


Congrats on your new screen, but yeah - sorry about the FedEx Packaging Test and Abuse Service. We ship products in plywood crates and welded steel bottoms that they still manage to wreck. It's their superpower. I had one recently going to a production studio in NYC, with their "critical" white glove service, and they literally drove forks through the plywood. I would have to have shipped a steel vault to avoid that.

Guidelines are just that, and personal preference always reigns supreme. We've done many floor-to-ceiling screens for that IMAX look, so I'm not surprised that you like that groundless look. We do raise the flag if your eyes were higher than mid-axis, but again, it's your preference and another overall performance enhancement that AT screens bring to the holistic experience since best video AND audio practices can be pursued independently. (People that say AT looks worse ignore the qualities of size and location, but I'll stay on topic).

It looks to me like the left vertical turnbuckle could use loosening by about 1/2 turn, but I suspect that's mostly a room-lights-on issue.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## va_lemon

thrillcat said:


> I'm also watching the YIO, I was a NEEO Kickstarter backer and I loved it, but they didn't quite finish it before selling it off to C4, so I moved to the Harmony. Not completely thrilled with it but it's functional and will hold me over. I'm waiting to see the YIO before deciding between that and the C4 version of the NEEO.
> 
> I will say that Chris is very receptive to this sort of project, and if we can scan the remotes he's using, he'll provide them to YIO for inclusion in their database.


I still use my NEEO Black Cat edition! I haven’t changed any of my AV components as there’s no way to add new ones to the remote. Waiting patiently for the YIO.

I see Chris responded below and it does look promising.


----------



## va_lemon

chriscmore said:


> We can confirm that the Bond product will learn our RF remote. They're releasing a new Bond Pro that has additional capacities and we'll have them in stock.
> 
> The Proscenium's base wall switch power supply also has some features in it we'll be discussing later.
> 
> The advantage of having a simple-wired motor (2-wire in the case of Proscenium, 4-wire in the case of retractable) is that they'll be able to use upgraded controls later on. We're not sure if we'll have something to show off at CEDIA but we're trying.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris! Great to hear that Bond can indeed learn the screen remote. I will reach out once I’m closer to ordering the screen. Have to find and meet with a local integrator in the DC area to make sure that the projector and screen combo makes sense for my space before I purchase.


----------



## thrillcat

va_lemon said:


> I still use my NEEO Black Cat edition! I haven’t changed any of my AV components as there’s no way to add new ones to the remote. Waiting patiently for the YIO.
> 
> I see Chris responded below and it does look promising.


Mine did an auto-update the night before they announced the sale to C4, and it never worked properly again. All my power-down sequences were broken and power-ups stopped selecting the correct input on my processor. Infuriating.


----------



## StevenC56

va_lemon said:


> Anyone here have the Seymour Proscenium Masking Frame? Does the base control for the powered masking use RF 433MHZ for the remote control? I’m trying to figure out if the remote signal could be learned by a RF learning module and integrated with a home automation system.
> 
> I checked with Seymour support and did not get a definitive answer. They were otherwise very responsive with other questions.
> 
> I’m hoping one of y’all can check your remotes or the receiver box for any labeling that may indicate the signal type.
> 
> Thanks in advance!





chriscmore said:


> We can confirm that the Bond product will learn our RF remote. They're releasing a new Bond Pro that has additional capacities and we'll have them in stock.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I'm the guy that figured out the Bond Bridge would accept/learn the RF signal from the Seymour remotes and also integrated it into Google Home for voice commands. I then relayed this information to Seymour in 2020.


----------



## hulkss

chriscmore said:


> It looks to me like the left vertical turnbuckle could use loosening by about 1/2 turn, but I suspect that's mostly a room-lights-on issue.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Yes, I found the tab tensioning cable on that side was wound over the cable anchor screw head (on the top roller) adding tension to it. I just moved it off and onto the tube with my finger. It must have got that way in shipping as it is not at all tending to wind-up like that again.

There are tension springs that anchor the cable at the bottom so the turnbuckle setting is not so sensitive as without them. I did loosen this one a few turns.

I have to say, this large (140" x 59") screen hangs extremely flat and uniform. Nice work by your team.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

Just got my Glacier White installed....stunning image and even slightly more gain than the sample which was a welcome bonus. Just a great improvement over my previous Carl's Place flexi white screen. The mounting bracket didnt have the bult in level bubble which would have been handy even though it shows like that on the instruction manual.


----------



## thrillcat

va_lemon said:


> Seymour did provide me pricing as well for one step up option which would add full RS232 capability but it would add a good chunk of change to the price.
> Like you, I just need to be able to add the control to my remote control so it can be operated in a macro with the projector lens memory. The remote I‘m looking at (YIO v2) can integrate IR and network devices so I was exploring any option that could allow the screen mask to be controlled from that remote.
> I’m still a couple of months away from getting the screen but will report back on any solution I come up with.


FYI I spent some more time today trying to program the included remote into my Harmony Elite Hub with no success.


----------



## StevenC56

thrillcat said:


> FYI I spent some more time today trying to program the included remote into my Harmony Elite Hub with no success.


If you have the standard RF remote motor on your screen, no remote including the Harmony Elite Hub will work. None of these remotes/hubs can copy or send an RF signal. The only thing that works is a "Bond Bridge". It can copy and send RF signals.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

So small update on my new Glacier White 140" WIDE 2.35 screen. First movie watched and it was amazing. Even my wife said that everything looked so "clear" which is funny cause it was the first word that came to my mind when I first tried it right after installation.
People that think there is no difference between entry level screens and a high quality one like this, are clearly talking without having experienced one.


----------



## va_lemon

thrillcat said:


> FYI I spent some more time today trying to program the included remote into my Harmony Elite Hub with no success.


I'm not 100% certain on this, but I thought the Harmony Elite Hub can only control devices using IR, WiFi or Bluetooth. The Harmony Remote communicates with the Elite Hub using RF, but I don't think you can control other RF devices with just the Harmony Remote and Hub.

You will need a RF bridge like the Bond and have it learn the screen's remote control RF codes. Then, you would somehow have to add the Bond Bridge to the Harmony Elite Hub. I don't think there is a native integration available to add the Bond Bridge to the Harmony Elite Hub. You may want ask on the Bond Bridge support forums.

Typically, you would have to be running a home automation system like Home Assistant that would be used to provide the integration between Bond and Harmony. Definitely not simple, and may not be worth it just for the screen. I already use Home Assistant in combination with Apple HomeKit and my NEEO remote so it'd be easier for me to add the Bond Bridge as opposed to starting from scratch with Home Assistant (which will have a learning curve).


----------



## StevenC56

va_lemon said:


> I'm not 100% certain on this, but I thought the Harmony Elite Hub can only control devices using IR, WiFi or Bluetooth. The Harmony Remote communicates with the Elite Hub using RF, but I don't think you can control other RF devices with just the Harmony Remote and Hub.
> 
> You will need a RF bridge like the Bond and have it learn the screen's remote control RF codes. Then, you would somehow have to add the Bond Bridge to the Harmony Elite Hub. I don't think there is a native integration available to add the Bond Bridge to the Harmony Elite Hub. You may want ask on the Bond Bridge support forums.
> 
> Typically, you would have to be running a home automation system like Home Assistant that would be used to provide the integration between Bond and Harmony. Definitely not simple, and may not be worth it just for the screen. I already use Home Assistant in combination with Apple HomeKit and my NEEO remote so it'd be easier for me to add the Bond Bridge as opposed to starting from scratch with Home Assistant (which will have a learning curve).


I contacted Logitech support in May of 2020 after I tried to integrate the Bond Bridge with my Harmony Elite/Hub setup and had no success. They told me there was no support for the Bond Hub at that time. I don't think they ever added it since they discontinued all their remotes. I have my Bond Bridge interfaced into Google home. Since the Bond Bridge is really meant for ceiling fans, window covering motors and fireplaces, the commands I had to use are not exactly what I would like. Bond told me they might allow renaming commands at some point, but I haven't checked lately. Anyway, "Hey Google open the projector screen" lowers my screen, and "Hey Google close the projector screen" raises it.


----------



## Hawks07

Luis Gabriel Gerena said:


> So small update on my new Glacier White 140" WIDE 2.35 screen. First movie watched and it was amazing. Even my wife said that everything looked so "clear" which is funny cause it was the first word that came to my mind when I first tried it right after installation.
> People that think there is no difference between entry level screens and a high quality one like this, are clearly talking without having experienced one.


What screen did you upgrade from?


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

Hawks07 said:


> What screen did you upgrade from?


Carl's Place Flexiwhite and Silver Ticket Matte white.
During my upgrade research I tested samples from Elite Screens, others from Silver Ticket, Stewart, xy, Seymour and Severtson.


----------



## flyers10

If you paint the false wall structure and cover absorption insulation with black fabric, do you need to the black backing layer with the UF material?


----------



## thrillcat

flyers10 said:


> If you paint the false wall structure and cover absorption insulation with black fabric, do you need to the black backing layer with the UF material?


Likely not. What black fabric are you using? Be careful not to use something that will offset the acoustic properties of your new Seymour screen... I use landscape fabric.


----------



## flyers10

thrillcat said:


> Likely not. What black fabric are you using? Be careful not to use something that will offset the acoustic properties of your new Seymour screen... I use landscape fabric.


Was thinking something like landscape fabric to cover the fluff insulation.


----------



## Par

I just got my screen this week and it has a black material hanging on the back of it. I’m guessing he’s talking about that? Doesn’t seem to hurt the sound?


----------



## thrillcat

Par said:


> I just got my screen this week and it has a black material hanging on the back of it. I’m guessing he’s talking about that? Doesn’t seem to hurt the sound?


The material Seymour provides will not have a noticeable impact on the sound. The OP was asking if he needed to add that layer to his order if he was using a black fabric over the false wall - that is the fabric I was talking about.


----------



## chriscmore

flyers10 said:


> If you paint the false wall structure and cover absorption insulation with black fabric, do you need to the black backing layer with the UF material?


I'd also say no. The way for anyone to test if they are getting any visual backlight reflection is to play some movie credits (white text on black background), with something black behind half or so of the screen. Then see if there is any perceptible difference in the black level on one side versus the other.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## mv038856

Hi Chris,

do you want to share any info on a possible UF successor? In what aspects would it differ from the classic UF screen material?

Thanks!

Markus


----------



## chriscmore

mv038856 said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> do you want to share any info on a possible UF successor? In what aspects would it differ from the classic UF screen material?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Markus


Hi Markus -

I'll give out more information soon.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## StevenC56

chriscmore said:


> Hi Markus -
> 
> I'll give out more information soon.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hey Chris! Will there be a replacement for just the UF, or the XD as well? And how soon will you be announcing this?


----------



## Ellebob

A lot of products get announced around the time of Cedia so that's my guess for a new product announcement. it will either come at Cedia or slightly before it, as that is often the trend with manufacturers. Cedia trade show start Sept 29 this year for those not familiar.


----------



## chriscmore

Just the UF. Probably around CEDIA time.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## StevenC56

chriscmore said:


> Just the UF. Probably around CEDIA time.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks. looking forward to the reveal!


----------



## aaron186

Does the proscenium screen work with any of the universal remote controls or smart home technology? Logitech harmony?


----------



## thrillcat

aaron186 said:


> Does the proscenium screen work with any of the universal remote controls or smart home technology? Logitech harmony?


No on the Harmony, but they're working on a new solution that will be easily added to existing Proscenium masking screens.


----------



## Augmont

I just pulled the trigger on a 140" w 2.35:1 retractable XD screen.
I was debating between 130" vs. 140" but my kids pushed my towards the 140".....TBH it wasn't a hard push.

This is my first screen and it REALLY pushed my budget but I feel very good about my selection and purchase. I will be using an older Epson 6040 that I purchased used that I hope will carry me for bit until I can get other aspects of my media room completed which will be room treatment for acoustics.

Thanks to Jon for the assistance he provided. I didn't ask too many questions as I kinda did some research but his response was always very timely. I like that and I also liked it was made here in the States.


----------



## anjunadeep

chriscmore said:


> Just the UF. Probably around CEDIA time.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Will you be at CEDIA?


----------



## chriscmore

anjunadeep said:


> Will you be at CEDIA?


For our 15th year, you bet! We'll be located in Sound Room 2, together with staff from Ascendo Audio and their 32" (!) sub, Storm Audio and RowOne seating. Passive partners that won't have their staff in the booth include MadVR, Barco, and Straight Wires. We'll be showing off the new Retromasks and may have another item or two to introduce. Not UF though, as we keep the CEDIA market to our Seymour-Screen Excellence company.

We're also a passive partner in nearby booth 26097, where HTE is again building their pre-engineered room for Trinnov, MadVR and Sonus Faber. We'll have another Seymour / Barco combination there to witness.

If anyone needs a pass, let me know.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Correction on the CEDIA demo, Ascendo Audio will be bringing their 50" (!!) sub. 

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## annapl

hi @chriscmore my front seats are at 10.5 feet will i see texture or grain at my seating position?(planning center stage xd 16:9 159") or should i wait for new new UF to be launched need you advice 
as i am from india and i have a friend who can bring it for me there should be no room for mistakes


----------



## chriscmore

annapl said:


> hi @chriscmore my front seats are at 10.5 feet will i see texture or grain at my seating position?(planning center stage xd 16:9 159") or should i wait for new new UF to be launched need you advice
> as i am from india and i have a friend who can bring it for me there should be no room for mistakes


You're pushing a couple boundaries. At 10.5' seating distance from a 159"d screen, you're at a 57.6 degree wide viewing angle. Guidelines recommend a 40-45 degree wide viewing angle, which means you'd either scoot back to 14' and use the XD's gain for such a large screen. Or, shrink your screen down to around 120"d, which means you then should use the UF's lower gain and smooth surface.

If you have to stay that close, and that large, I'd stick with the UF and spend more for projector power. Properly illuminating a 0.8 gain screen that large takes power. That part can be system can be accomplished with money.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## DavidK442

chriscmore said:


> Hi Markus -
> 
> I'll give out more information soon.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


A UF update! I have been contemplating an upgrade from the old spandex. Looks like the time has finally come.


----------



## annapl

size isn’t my problem as im doing diy i can mask and shrink it to my requirements 😉
i just wanna know will i see grain/texture at 10.5’(front row) feet seating distance 13’ (my 💺) is the max i can extend @chriscmore


----------



## nathan_h

annapl said:


> size isn’t my problem as im doing diy i can mask and shrink it to my requirements 😉
> i just wanna know will i see grain/texture at 10.5’(front row) feet seating distance 13’ (my 💺) is the max i can extend @chriscmore


You should order a sample piece of material and look at it from that distance yourself and decide. Many people CAN see the texture of XD at 10' or 12'. Some people cannot. 

To be safe in terms of seeing the texture, you would probably want to consider UF or the replacement. (Again only AFTER looking at a sample in your room.) 

But pay attention to what Chris says: UF has less texture but won't be bright enough at your full screen size (with most projectors people around here use so if you are using something unique please state what it is). 

XD has more texture but is brighter and would work much better at your full screen size. 

If you are going to mask it smaller, and NEVER open it up full size, then you need to state what the REAL FULL SIZE will be (ie, not 160" but ???) to know whether the UF material will be bright enough. And then you probably want to order that smaller size instead of spending extra money on screen size you will not use?


----------



## Chesterwhipplefilter

nathan_h said:


> You should order a sample piece of material and look at it from that distance yourself and decide. Many people CAN see the texture of XD at 10' or 12'. Some people cannot.
> 
> To be safe in terms of seeing the texture, you would probably want to consider UF or the replacement. (Again only AFTER looking at a sample in your room.)
> 
> But pay attention to what Chris says: UF has less texture but won't be bright enough at your full screen size (with most projectors people around here use so if you are using something unique please state what it is).
> 
> XD has more texture but is brighter and would work much better at your full screen size.
> 
> If you are going to mask it smaller, and NEVER open it up full size, then you need to state what the REAL FULL SIZE will be (ie, not 160" but ???) to know whether the UF material will be bright enough. And then you probably want to order that smaller size instead of spending extra money on screen size you will not use?


I posted a few pages back about how we went with UF at 9.5 ft and never were happy with the sharpness. At the suggestion of some members here, we swapped it for XD and it has made a world of difference. We are so so so much happier now than we were before. It wasn't that the UF was bad, it just didn't provide as crisp an image as we wanted. The XD corrected that for us - and we see zero weave or texture at 9.5 ft (first row 9.5 ft, second row about 13 feet). We use it with a 5050UB.

But with a new and improved UF coming out as Chris has hinted at, I'd probably wait to see what that looks like before deciding. With the current offerings, the XD turned out to be correct for our situation.


----------



## nathan_h

Exactly: Everyone's eyes are different. Some people see the XD weave from 12 feet, and here is an example of someone that doesn't see it from 9.5 feet. It really pays to get a sample and test it rather than rely on other peoples' eyes


----------



## StevenC56

nathan_h said:


> Exactly: Everyone's eyes are different. Some people see the XD weave from 12 feet, and here is an example of someone that doesn't see it from 9.5 feet. It really pays to get a sample and test it rather than rely on other peoples' eyes


Our main seating is about 12.5" back from our XD retractable. Can't see the weave at all. There's a couch about 7.5-8' away and you can see it, but mainly in light colors and white when there's a large section of that on the screen.


----------



## Par

I just got my 149” 16x9 XD screen a couple weeks ago and couldn’t be happier. I moved my seats back to about 12’, I only have one row and my 58 year old eyes don’t see any weave. My PJ is a Sony 885es laser.


----------



## nathan_h

Yes I have only read of a couple people that can see it at 12 feet. But if you are one of those people, wouldn't it be nice to know that before buying a screen? Luckily Seymour makes it easy to test FOR FREE with a screen sample.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

Just watched ambulance on our Glacier white and it looked stunning with great contrast and punchy saturaded colors...as fast as camera work......


----------



## annapl

i will get the both samples once the new UF is out and then i will decide


----------



## lacrossewacker

Luis Gabriel Gerena said:


> Just watched ambulance on our Glacier white and it looked stunning with great contrast and punchy saturaded colors...as fast as camera work......


Anybody know how Seymour glacier white compares to Silver Ticket (White Material, 1.1 gain): STR-169128 Silver Ticket, 128" 16:9 4K / 8K Fixed Frame Projector Screen, White Material

I see on the Seymour site, I can get the Glacier White rolls for DIY setups, which is what I currently have (Carl's Place blackout cloth over a DIY 127" wooden frame).


----------



## nathan_h

I would definitely get a sample of each and look at them.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

lacrossewacker said:


> Anybody know how Seymour glacier white compares to Silver Ticket (White Material, 1.1 gain): STR-169128 Silver Ticket, 128" 16:9 4K / 8K Fixed Frame Projector Screen, White Material
> 
> I see on the Seymour site, I can get the Glacier White rolls for DIY setups, which is what I currently have (Carl's Place blackout cloth over a DIY 127" wooden frame).


I suggest you grab samples but from my testing the silver ticket is not in the same class as the Glacier White...which was my pick after testing several.


----------



## lacrossewacker

Luis Gabriel Gerena said:


> I suggest you grab samples but from my testing the silver ticket is not in the same class as the Glacier White...which was my pick after testing several.


Contacted them last night for a sample of their glacier white. What I’m looking for is particularly the increase in brightness/vibrancy without bumping up the blacks at all.

I’ve basically been putting the samples right up against colorful highlights and what not, then sliding them down to where the cut off/black bars, and making sure there’s no bump in the black bars, making them appear a lighter gray or anything.

Will report back when I can compare these.

Now…why is it SOOOO much more expensive between the DIY material compared to the standard frame???

I want a new frame, getting away from my wooden one that is starting to bend/warp, but is looks like it’ll be $2000 more for a fixed frame version. What am I missing?


----------



## nathan_h

Technically, there is no free lunch and a brighter screen will also increase the brightness of the black level. But many many people find the tradeoff acceptable. 

Regarding frame prices: US labor is not cheap and Seymour builds stuff in the USA. You can get cheaper frames from China (which is part of why Silver Ticket and Elite are cheaper).


----------



## flyers10

lacrossewacker said:


> Contacted them last night for a sample of their glacier white. What I’m looking for is particularly the increase in brightness/vibrancy without bumping up the blacks at all.
> 
> I’ve basically been putting the samples right up against colorful highlights and what not, then sliding them down to where the cut off/black bars, and making sure there’s no bump in the black bars, making them appear a lighter gray or anything.
> 
> Will report back when I can compare these.
> 
> Now…why is it SOOOO much more expensive between the DIY material compared to the standard frame???
> 
> I want a new frame, getting away from my wooden one that is starting to bend/warp, but is looks like it’ll be $2000 more for a fixed frame version. What am I missing?


I'm sure some of the frame cost is in shipping. Some are 1 long piece, not cut in half. Their frames are known to go together very easily and screen simple to attach and well constructed to last. Also they have an excellent masking panels system that works with their frames. I'm sure are some other things about their frames others can chime in about. 
That's the great thing about them selling the material by itself. If one wants to save on a frame they can just build one and still have the great picture.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

flyers10 said:


> I'm sure some of the frame cost is in shipping. Some are 1 long piece, not cut in half. Their frames are known to go together very easily and screen simple to attach and well constructed to last. Also they have an excellent masking panels system that works with their frames. I'm sure are some other things about their frames others can chime in about.
> That's the great thing about them selling the material by itself. If one wants to save on a frame they can just build one and still have the great picture.


Yes indeed, I went with the one long piece frame and I had to pay a good chunk of money for that over the split one even with the great price I got from my dealer. Still totally worth it.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

nathan_h said:


> Technically, there is no free lunch and a brighter screen will also increase the brightness of the black level.


Indeed, there is no free meal as stated above. Work on controlling reflections and that will help with contrast though


----------



## Hawks07

Is there any idea as to when the top motorized masking system will be available? I was going to make my own motorized roller masking but will hold off if this unit is coming soon.


----------



## chriscmore

Hawks07 said:


> Is there any idea as to when the top motorized masking system will be available? I was going to make my own motorized roller masking but will hold off if this unit is coming soon.


The Retromasks will be available this winter. They're for converting (anyone's) scope screen to 16:9. It's not a continuous top mask, like to convert a 16:9 to scope using double-top masking. We'd instead look into larger rolling kits for that.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Hawks07

chriscmore said:


> The Retromasks will be available this winter. They're for converting (anyone's) scope screen to 16:9. It's not a continuous top mask, like to convert a 16:9 to scope using double-top masking. We'd instead look into larger rolling kits for that.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Perfect, thanks for the info Chris. That is exactly what I will be looking for.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

chriscmore said:


> The Retromasks will be available this winter. They're for converting (anyone's) scope screen to 16:9. It's not a continuous top mask, like to convert a 16:9 to scope using double-top masking. We'd instead look into larger rolling kits for that.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Does it work with any of your frames?


----------



## chriscmore

Luis Gabriel Gerena said:


> Does it work with any of your frames?


Any of our frames, as well as anyone else's. It'll take us some time to adapt to some of the specifics, but the platform will be universal.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

chriscmore said:


> Any of our frames, as well as anyone else's. It'll take us some time to adapt to some of the specifics, but the platform will be universal.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


excellent. Looking forward to it to mask my Seymour screen! (152.1" diag scope)


----------



## confinoj

confinoj said:


> Thanks so much Chris. I appreciate the assistance. Then I'll plan on just cutting the material to the same size as the suppled UF. My room finishes up next week and very excited to get the frame assembled and mounted. The magnetic masking panels are really cool.


I did cut my Dreamscreen material to the same size as the UF and matched the grommet pattern. This worked fairly well. There was a good amount of tension horizontally that led to some visible buckling along the left and right sides. See attached pic. Fortunately this is invisible with lights off and projected content. Chad B just calibrated the NZ7 and for HDR max output was about 27fl so for my particular situation being so close (unable to use XD) there was some benefit of the higher gain V7 material over the UF.

While that buckling is not visible in content it still bugs me a bit seeing it with the lights on entering the room. Any suggestions on anything I can do with the o-rings and post positions to improve that? There does need to be enough stretch for grommets to clear the visible area but can likely stand to decrease tension a bit. Thanks.


----------



## Hawks07

confinoj said:


> I did cut my Dreamscreen material to the same size as the UF and matched the grommet pattern. This worked fairly well. There was a good amount of tension horizontally that led to some visible buckling along the left and right sides. See attached pic. Fortunately this is invisible with lights off and projected content. Chad B just calibrated the NZ7 and for HDR max output was about 27fl so for my particular situation being so close (unable to use XD) there was some benefit of the higher gain V7 material over the UF.
> 
> While that buckling is not visible in content it still bugs me a bit seeing it with the lights on entering the room. Any suggestions on anything I can do with the o-rings and post positions to improve that? There does need to be enough stretch for grommets to clear the visible area but can likely stand to decrease tension a bit. Thanks.


It must be that the UF has more stretch than the V7 it seems. 
What are you using to attach the grommets to the frame?


----------



## confinoj

Hawks07 said:


> It must be that the UF has more stretch than the V7 it seems.
> What are you using to attach the grommets to the frame?


I'm using the supplied o-rings from Seymour. Yes the V7 does not stretch as much which I knew but hard to account for ahead of time and thought a little extra tension wouldn’t be a bad thing but didn’t foresee the buckling that occurred. Again not a huge deal in the end as it’s not visible in content and accentuated by lights from above but if there is some easy way to improve it I would.


----------



## Hawks07

confinoj said:


> I'm using the supplied o-rings from Seymour. Yes the V7 does not stretch as much which I knew but hard to account for ahead of time and thought a little extra tension wouldn’t be a bad thing but didn’t foresee the buckling that occurred. Again not a huge deal in the end as it’s not visible in content and accentuated by lights from above but if there is some easy way to improve it I would.


I don’t know if there are different O rings you can try with a little less tension or maybe try spring hooks that will attach to the track lip. Maybe those will have a little more give to them.


----------



## flyers10

confinoj said:


> I did cut my Dreamscreen material to the same size as the UF and matched the grommet pattern. This worked fairly well. There was a good amount of tension horizontally that led to some visible buckling along the left and right sides. See attached pic. Fortunately this is invisible with lights off and projected content. Chad B just calibrated the NZ7 and for HDR max output was about 27fl so for my particular situation being so close (unable to use XD) there was some benefit of the higher gain V7 material over the UF.
> 
> While that buckling is not visible in content it still bugs me a bit seeing it with the lights on entering the room. Any suggestions on anything I can do with the o-rings and post positions to improve that? There does need to be enough stretch for grommets to clear the visible area but can likely stand to decrease tension a bit. Thanks.


What's your viewing distance?


----------



## confinoj

flyers10 said:


> What's your viewing distance?


8.5ft


----------



## thrillcat

confinoj said:


> I'm using the supplied o-rings from Seymour. Yes the V7 does not stretch as much which I knew but hard to account for ahead of time and thought a little extra tension wouldn’t be a bad thing but didn’t foresee the buckling that occurred. Again not a huge deal in the end as it’s not visible in content and accentuated by lights from above but if there is some easy way to improve it I would.


Try getting a pair of wooden dowels and inserting them through the o-rings, while looping the o-ring around the dowel once to hold it close to the grommets. Perhaps using that would distribute the pressure more evenly and take care of it?


----------



## confinoj

thrillcat said:


> Try getting a pair of wooden dowels and inserting them through the o-rings, while looping the o-ring around the dowel once to hold it close to the grommets. Perhaps using that would distribute the pressure more evenly and take care of it?


Interesting idea. Thanks. I’d have to get long wooden dowels and cut to the right size but I suppose that would be easy to do at Home Depot.


----------



## confinoj

thrillcat said:


> Try getting a pair of wooden dowels and inserting them through the o-rings, while looping the o-ring around the dowel once to hold it close to the grommets. Perhaps using that would distribute the pressure more evenly and take care of it?


I posted my question in the Dreamscreen thread as well. Someone pointed out that part of the issue could also be not enough tension vertically and I think this is a valid point. I can try adding extra o-rings and potentially some zip ties to add to the vertical tension particularly near the edges and see if this helps. There definitely is less tension on the top and bottom o-rings. Not sure it will eliminate the issue but may improve it.


----------



## thrillcat

confinoj said:


> I posted my question in the Dreamscreen thread as well. Someone pointed out that part of the issue could also be not enough tension vertically and I think this is a valid point. I can try adding extra o-rings and potentially some zip ties to add to the vertical tension particularly near the edges and see if this helps. There definitely is less tension on the top and bottom o-rings. Not sure it will eliminate the issue but may improve it.


Rather than adding more o-rings, just try using a single o-ring, but loop it through the grommet twice to essentially make the o-ring smaller, thus pulling tighter.


----------



## confinoj

thrillcat said:


> Rather than adding more o-rings, just try using a single o-ring, but loop it through the grommet twice to essentially make the o-ring smaller, thus pulling tighter.


Not sure there is enough stretch to do that but worth a try.


----------



## nathan_h

Or maybe a looser o-ring where you had to stretch just a bit too much with the existing ones, to relieve some of that tension that created the issue?


----------



## scottyb

*The official SeymourAV center stage screen thread!*


----------



## CincyNick

I'm about to order an XD Precision fixed frame. Do most people do the black backing or do you simply add velvet or similar around the speakers (not covering any drivers) behind the screen? 

I've been searching and could not find a concrete answer. Thanks in advance!


----------



## KCAV23

CincyNick said:


> I'm about to order an XD Precision fixed frame. Do most people do the black backing or do you simply add velvet or similar around the speakers (not covering any drivers) behind the screen?
> 
> I've been searching and could not find a concrete answer. Thanks in advance!


I sent you a PM


----------



## nathan_h

CincyNick said:


> I'm about to order an XD Precision fixed frame. Do most people do the black backing or do you simply add velvet or similar around the speakers (not covering any drivers) behind the screen?
> 
> I've been searching and could not find a concrete answer. Thanks in advance!


Once I completely blacked out everything behind the screen I didn’t find the backing necessary.


----------



## chriscmore

nathan_h said:


> Or maybe a looser o-ring where you had to stretch just a bit too much with the existing ones, to relieve some of that tension that created the issue?


Yeah, it looks like loosening the sides could help. I'd try poking the o-ring through the grommet, then itself, so that it's only one half hooking over the post instead of two. Then possibly tightening the top /bottom corners so that vertical tension across those puckers is increased. This would most easily be done with zip ties. Travis' dowel trick would be slick, as we do this in some screens when we manufacture them, too. Otherwise, not being our material I'm limited in familiarity as to its mechanical properties. (Cheers Scotty!)

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

CincyNick said:


> I'm about to order an XD Precision fixed frame. Do most people do the black backing or do you simply add velvet or similar around the speakers (not covering any drivers) behind the screen?
> 
> I've been searching and could not find a concrete answer. Thanks in advance!


Very few people need black backing behind the XD material, as it's quite easy to get it nonreflective enough behind the screen area. Black or dark fabrics or foam are much more absorbent than paint, so use them primarily. If you ever need to test if you need it, try draping something dark like a blanket behind half the screen and run white credits on a black background and see if the black is any darker on that treated side or not.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## thrillcat

chriscmore said:


> Very few people need black backing behind the XD material, as it's quite easy to get it nonreflective enough behind the screen area. Black or dark fabrics or foam are much more absorbent than paint, so use them primarily. If you ever need to test if you need it, try draping something dark like a blanket behind half the screen and run white credits on a black background and see if the black is any darker on that treated side or not.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I needed it when I had horns behind an XD screen. When credits rolled it was most obvious, but I could see the text reflecting off the horns behind the screen. It was less noticeable during actual content, but contrasty images it was there. It was only on the waveguides, nothing else back there reflected.


----------



## anjunadeep

chriscmore said:


> Very few people need black backing behind the XD material, as it's quite easy to get it nonreflective enough behind the screen area. Black or dark fabrics or foam are much more absorbent than paint, so use them primarily. If you ever need to test if you need it, try draping something dark like a blanket behind half the screen and run white credits on a black background and see if the black is any darker on that treated side or not.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


What about the UF? Like if you use UF and the screen wall framing is painted black but close to the screen in some area, would adding some foam be needed? Is there something specific you recommend?


----------



## chriscmore

anjunadeep said:


> What about the UF? Like if you use UF and the screen wall framing is painted black but close to the screen in some area, would adding some foam be needed? Is there something specific you recommend?


The Center Stage UF is a little more likely to benefit from a black backing layer, or more aggressive light treatment behind the screen. A black acoustic foam or duct liner are excellent light sinks, and often helpful for acoustic treatment of the baffle wall anyway. Black speaker grill material is also excellent, as it's basically the black backing layer itself, attached to the wall instead of the screen. Some mastering studios will even cut holes in the black backing layer for their speakers.

Black paint is only two dimensional, so its reflectivity is always much greater than fabrics, foams, or other three-dimensional surfaces. So if you need to just have paint, go with as black and matte as possible.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## confinoj

chriscmore said:


> Yeah, it looks like loosening the sides could help. I'd try poking the o-ring through the grommet, then itself, so that it's only one half hooking over the post instead of two. Then possibly tightening the top /bottom corners so that vertical tension across those puckers is increased. This would most easily be done with zip ties. Travis' dowel trick would be slick, as we do this in some screens when we manufacture them, too. Otherwise, not being our material I'm limited in familiarity as to its mechanical properties. (Cheers Scotty!)
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


4 zip ties (one at each corner) and loosening of the side o-rings and it’s now perfect. Thanks everyone for the help with this little diy frame and screen project. Particularly Chris who still helped despite me using a Seymour frame with non-Seymour material. Truly appreciated.


----------



## DavidK442

I remember someone (Cough—chris) saying that an updated version of UF would be announced around Cedia. Busy displaying the new masking system I suppose. Nothing else too exciting at the show this year from what I’ve seen.


----------



## Darrin

Question: I'm considering a new screen and was really leaning towards the Stewart Studiotek 130 for my JVC NX7 projector. But...I LOVE the masking system Seymour has for their screens (I'm running with a 16x9 screen). 

If I were to go with Seymour vs Stewart, would I be giving up a lot in terms of quality? And which screen/screen material would be a good (or the best) fit for my projector?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## thrillcat

Darrin said:


> Question: I'm considering a new screen and was really leaning towards the Stewart Studiotek 130 for my JVC NX7 projector. But...I LOVE the masking system Seymour has for their screens (I'm running with a 16x9 screen).
> 
> If I were to go with Seymour vs Stewart, would I be giving up a lot in terms of quality? And which screen/screen material would be a good (or the best) fit for my projector?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


zero sacrifice. Best fit depends more on your room, less on the projector.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

Darrin said:


> Question: I'm considering a new screen and was really leaning towards the Stewart Studiotek 130 for my JVC NX7 projector. But...I LOVE the masking system Seymour has for their screens (I'm running with a 16x9 screen).
> 
> If I were to go with Seymour vs Stewart, would I be giving up a lot in terms of quality? And which screen/screen material would be a good (or the best) fit for my projector?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


I compared many screens before buying mine. Between my two top choices, Seymour Glacier White and Stewart st130 g4 I didn't see any difference that made one superior to the other so basically I went with Seymour as I got a great price from my dealer.
Love my Glacier White!


----------



## Darrin

Luis Gabriel Gerena said:


> I compared many screens before buying mine. Between my two top choices, Seymour Glacier White and Stewart st130 g4 I didn't see any difference that made one superior to the other so basically I went with Seymour as I got a great price from my dealer.
> Love my Glacier White!


I've heard good things about the Glacier...but it also seems the Glacier introduces a "blueish" tone to the picture (perhaps coming back to the name?) and isn't quite as bright as the Stewart. Do you notice a blue hue (coldness) to the picture?


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

Darrin said:


> I've heard good things about the Glacier...but it also seems the Glacier introduces a "blueish" tone to the picture (perhaps coming back to the name?) and isn't quite as bright as the Stewart. Do you notice a blue hue (coldness) to the picture?


I didn't notice anything major between the two plus after getting the screen, I calibrated my setup.
As far as brightness, using my sekonic 858D light meter I got the same reading from both even with the samples placed on different areas of the wall. If there was a difference it must be so minor that I cannot see it nor my meter is able to show it.
Regards


----------



## Sunny44

Darrin said:


> I've heard good things about the Glacier...but it also seems the Glacier introduces a "blueish" tone to the picture (perhaps coming back to the name?) and isn't quite as bright as the Stewart. Do you notice a blue hue (coldness) to the picture?


My search for an upgrade to my DIY screen has taken over a year.
Last year I got samples of Stewart’s st100 and the G4 and the glacier white from Seymour,
and the glacier white did have a slight blue tint compared to the other samples. Fast forward
to March of this year and after talking to Jon from Seymour I was told that I could get a sample of the glacier white that was from a new vendor. This new sample had no blue tint
and I couldn’t tell any difference from the Stewart samples. I ordered my screen from Seymour and I’m very happy with it.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

Sunny44 said:


> My search for an upgrade to my DIY screen has taken over a year.
> Last year I got samples of Stewart’s st100 and the G4 and the glacier white from Seymour,
> and the glacier white did have a slight blue tint compared to the other samples. Fast forward
> to March of this year and after talking to Jon from Seymour I was told that I could get a sample of the glacier white that was from a new vendor. This new sample had no blue tint
> and I couldn’t tell any difference from the Stewart samples. I ordered my screen from Seymour and I’m very happy with it.


Glad I got mine this year too then lol 
Thanks for sharing


----------



## annapl

any NEWS on updated version of UF @chriscmore


----------



## anjunadeep

annapl said:


> any NEWS on updated version of UF @chriscmore


the real question is how many bottles of advil does it take to do CEDIA demos for three days straight.


----------



## anjunadeep

How close can I place my speakers to UF material? What's the minimum space needed between the tweeter and the fabric?


----------



## chriscmore

anjunadeep said:


> the real question is how many bottles of advil does it take to do CEDIA demos for three days straight.


It is my week of ibuprofen, yes. I LOVE doing demos, even for my friendly competitors, but it is the most overall exhausting event of the year.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## flyers10

Any update on differences in the newer version of UF and when it will be available to order/ship?


----------



## chriscmore

Update on the Center Stage UF. We were hoping to have it available earlier in the year, but the textile industry is similar enough to the aluminum extrusion industry that their responses take months. Having gone through pre-production runs, if this first production batch also passes our specifications then we'll have it available for everyone including DIY hopefully within weeks*.

* see textile industry response history above.

We took the Center Stage UF, shrunk the thread down a notch, re-arranged the pattern among several other changes in its mechanical structure to strike that ideal balance between being fine enough to eliminate the minimum seating distance (like 6' was a problem, but improvements are improvements...) yet being robust enough to hold grommets for our fixed frame folks and staples for the DIY folks. The gain will remain the same at 0.8 and we should improve acoustic transparency by about 0.5dB, but I'll want to test the production batch to confirm. We do have a very limited supply of the new UF material so while I can't accept DIY bulk orders, I can make some screens with it.

Continuing my mission of using all-US made sources, at least we're not having to compound the effort by dealing with import issues. I'd rent a giant moving truck and go pick it up myself from the mill if they said it was ready.

Sorry for the delay in information. I hope we weren't too Emotiva-like on this one. 😕

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

Here is AV Nirvana's detailing of our demo room experience, along with some footage of my explaining the RetroMasks.






(I'm not the "I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens" guy for the record...)


----------



## 68mustang

Just wondering if any Proscenium Masking Frame owners had the control box go out on them?

My control box uses IR, rather than RF, which allows me to use my Harmony Elite remote to control the masking screen. 

I've had my Proscenium masking frame for about 2.5 years, but probably in use for < 2 years and the masking system stopped working recently. I've contacted Seymour AV and awaiting to hear back what they recommend to fix my issue and if its covered under warranty?


----------



## aaron186

chriscmore said:


> The Center Stage UF is a little more likely to benefit from a black backing layer, or more aggressive light treatment behind the screen. A black acoustic foam or duct liner are excellent light sinks, and often helpful for acoustic treatment of the baffle wall anyway. Black speaker grill material is also excellent, as it's basically the black backing layer itself, attached to the wall instead of the screen. Some mastering studios will even cut holes in the black backing layer for their speakers.
> 
> Black paint is only two dimensional, so its reflectivity is always much greater than fabrics, foams, or other three-dimensional surfaces. So if you need to just have paint, go with as black and matte as possible.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Do we still need a baffle wall with your XD screens? I was hoping to put the screen (premiere frame) on the wall directly with my in wall revels right behind it. Is this a bad idea? Would I need the black panel (painting walls dark grey but can go black behind screen if needed).


----------



## thrillcat

aaron186 said:


> Do we still need a baffle wall with your XD screens? I was hoping to put the screen (premiere frame) on the wall directly with my in wall revels right behind it. Is this a bad idea? Would I need the black panel (painting walls dark grey but can go black behind screen if needed).


In-walls don't require a baffle wall, as the actual wall saves the same purpose of closing off the sides and back of the speakers and creating a single flat surface. I'd recommend painting the wall black since you can. Or, if you can, fill in the screen area with a layer of 1" Linacoustic insulation, which is dark grey, and just use a 1" spacer for your screen mount and another at the bottom to make sure the screen isn't touching the Linacoustic - most baffle walls are faced with a layer of absorption.


----------



## KPS2525

If I’m looking to buy a retractable XD scope screen, any reason to wait for the new RetroMasks vs. getting the automated masking option that is currently offered?


----------



## StevenC56

KPS2525 said:


> If I’m looking to buy a retractable XD scope screen, any reason to wait for the new RetroMasks vs. getting the automated masking option that is currently offered?


The retrofit mask route might cost a bit less and the overall weight will be less. That dual roller housing is large and heavy, so they recommend ceiling mounting only. I have a 105" wide XD scope retractable and was thinking about adding the retromasks, but I'd like to go to a 120" wide XD so I'm considering the dual roller screen if I can ever sell my existing screen.


----------



## chriscmore

KPS2525 said:


> If I’m looking to buy a retractable XD scope screen, any reason to wait for the new RetroMasks vs. getting the automated masking option that is currently offered?


The new RetroMasks are for fixed frame screens. We have different ways of masking for retractables, either dedicated multi-roller setups or some possibilities of retrofitting existing screens, so please contact us for your challenges. So if you're wanting both retractable AND masking, we've been doing that for some time.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

The new Center Stage UF2 is in stock and available. Acoustic testing shows we were successful in improving its acoustical transparency by +0.5dB, which puts it at nearly as good as the best-in-class Enlightor-Neo (-1.5dB flat) and Center Stage XD (-1.4dB). Mechanical testing is showing it's good for our grommet attachment and DIY techniques such as staples. We're going to keep the minimum viewing distance like the UF at 6 feet for now, so for the closest viewers we may still recommend the Enlightor-Neo. I'll update the site today with the basics, with more comprehensive information to follow.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Mopar_Mudder

I bought my Center Stage screen back in 2010 and it has been great. It is a DIY install 142x59 and I tilted the material as much as possible when I made it.

Now I am looking at upgrading my projector to 4K (possibly 8K if I so the JVC NZ7). So the question is how will this screen perform at thoose resolutions? Do I need to change it out for something else and if so what.

Sorry I am sure this has been asked before but for the life of me I can't find a way to search a thread....


----------



## chriscmore

Mopar_Mudder said:


> I bought my Center Stage screen back in 2010 and it has been great. It is a DIY install 142x59 and I tilted the material as much as possible when I made it.
> 
> Now I am looking at upgrading my projector to 4K (possibly 8K if I so the JVC NZ7). So the question is how will this screen perform at thoose resolutions? Do I need to change it out for something else and if so what.
> 
> Sorry I am sure this has been asked before but for the life of me I can't find a way to search a thread....


Since the holes in the Center Stage (original) are still many times smaller than your 4K pixels would be, no resolution would be lost due to the material. If you were showing actual 8k (no overlap, no e-shift, etc) then some resolution would be lost, similar to how perf screens drop out 4K pixels.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## StevenC56

Mopar_Mudder said:


> I bought my Center Stage screen back in 2010 and it has been great. It is a DIY install 142x59 and I tilted the material as much as possible when I made it.
> 
> Now I am looking at upgrading my projector to 4K (possibly 8K if I so the JVC NZ7). So the question is how will this screen perform at thoose resolutions? Do I need to change it out for something else and if so what.
> 
> Sorry I am sure this has been asked before but for the life of me I can't find a way to search a thread....


 We have an XD retractable, and the picture from our NZ7 looks amazing on both 1080P and 4K programming. I would like to go a bit larger on my screen, but will most likely stick with the XD although I'm testing the new UF as well.


----------



## scottyb

KPS2525 said:


> If I’m looking to buy a retractable XD scope screen, any reason to wait for the new RetroMasks vs. getting the automated masking option that is currently offered?


 The retro masks are for fixed frame screens.


----------



## KCAV23

KPS2525 said:


> If I’m looking to buy a retractable XD scope screen, any reason to wait for the new RetroMasks vs. getting the automated masking option that is currently offered?


I sent you a PM


----------



## sjerseydad22

Is it a general consensus to say that without EQ-ing a center channel behind a Center Stage, one leaves something on the table in terms of a dedicated theater's overall sound performance capability? And therefore, the EQ process is simply part of the bargain one strikes when deciding on any acoustically transparent screen? If so, which EQ software is most used/highly recommended? I have Audyssey's MultEQ-32 via a Denon 8500 but if others here have had success with Audyssey's newest "X" version or something else, I'd be interested in hearing more.


----------



## chriscmore

sjerseydad22 said:


> Is it a general consensus to say that without EQ-ing a center channel behind a Center Stage, one leaves something on the table in terms of a dedicated theater's overall sound performance capability? And therefore, the EQ process is simply part of the bargain one strikes when deciding on any acoustically transparent screen? If so, which EQ software is most used/highly recommended? I have Audyssey's MultEQ-32 via a Denon 8500 but if others here have had success with Audyssey's newest "X" version or something else, I'd be interested in hearing more.


The Center Stage screens are so acoustically transparent that the use of EQ is optional. Speakers that are brighter in response typically don't need it. In my system, the center channel has its tweeter with a +1dB switch engaged, and no EQ used. This is partly to counter some high frequency roll-off but also to match with the L/R which are not behind the screens. While I'd guess that the great majority of users use an EQ process to counter all sorts of room and acoustic issues, keep in mind that the majority of content you watch was mastered behind these screens.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## flyers10

chriscmore said:


> The Center Stage screens are so acoustically transparent that the use of EQ is optional. Speakers that are brighter in response typically don't need it. In my system, the center channel has its tweeter with a +1dB switch engaged, and no EQ used. This is partly to counter some high frequency roll-off but also to match with the L/R which are not behind the screens. While I'd guess that the great majority of users use an EQ process to counter all sorts of room and acoustic issues, keep in mind that the majority of content you watch was mastered behind these screens.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Chris how is it with black backing used? Like on UF2 material?


----------



## chriscmore

flyers10 said:


> Chris how is it with black backing used? Like on UF2 material?


The Millibel black backing adds about 0.5dB average attenuation, with negligible effect below 8k.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## sjerseydad22

chriscmore said:


> The Center Stage screens are so acoustically transparent that the use of EQ is optional. Speakers that are brighter in response typically don't need it. In my system, the center channel has its tweeter with a +1dB switch engaged, and no EQ used. This is partly to counter some high frequency roll-off but also to match with the L/R which are not behind the screens. While I'd guess that the great majority of users use an EQ process to counter all sorts of room and acoustic issues, keep in mind that the majority of content you watch was mastered behind these screens.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hey Chris, love this product BTW! I forgot to mention, as it may impact your thinking/reply, that in my setup the center is the only speaker behind the screen -- the L-R are to the sides. Tannoy 8-inch drivers.


----------



## sjerseydad22

sjerseydad22 said:


> Hey Chris, love this product BTW! I forgot to mention, as it may impact your thinking/reply, that in my setup the center is the only speaker behind the screen -- the L-R are to the sides. Tannoy 8-inch drivers.


Ooops. I see now what you said. Disregard!! We're good.


----------



## steve0742003

I believe I have settled on doing a 140" DIY frame using the XD material. For those that have this is the general consensus to use a black backer material as well? If so I assume black spandex would be fine to use? I saw a mention Millibel black backing that Seymour sells as well.

Thanks for any help/opinions.


----------



## thrillcat

steve0742003 said:


> I believe I have settled on doing a 140" DIY frame using the XD material. For those that have this is the general consensus to use a black backer material as well? If so I assume black spandex would be fine to use? I saw a mention Millibel black backing that Seymour sells as well.
> 
> Thanks for any help/opinions.


Depends on what is behind your screen. I had an issue with the horns on my LCR reflecting several years ago and I used landscape fabric, which solved it. I’m using UF now and have no issues, though it’s basically blacked out behind the screen anyway.


----------



## steve0742003

thrillcat said:


> Depends on what is behind your screen. I had an issue with the horns on my LCR reflecting several years ago and I used landscape fabric, which solved it. I’m using UF now and have no issues, though it’s basically blacked out behind the screen anyway.


I will have about 36" of space behind the screen for my subwoofers and the LCR. I plan on lining the back and sidewalls with at least 1 possibly 2 layers of safe n sound. Also thinking about corner bass traps cutting safe n sound into tringles for the corners from the floor to ceiling. I was curious if the black lining would help increase contrast or anything.


----------



## scottyb

steve0742003 said:


> I will have about 36" of space behind the screen for my subwoofers and the LCR. I plan on lining the back and sidewalls with at least 1 possibly 2 layers of safe n sound. Also thinking about corner bass traps cutting safe n sound into tringles for the corners from the floor to ceiling. I was curious if the black lining would help increase contrast or anything.


The black backing is only to prevent reflections back through the screen that you could see. It won’t help contrast or anything so I would start without it.


----------



## confinoj

I'm trying to get my ceiling mounted JVC NZ7 better aligned with my Seymour Premier frame. I seem to have a slight non-rectangle parallelogram shape to my image after spending some time trying to get it perfectly square. Top and bottom are parallel and straight. Sides are parallel but slanted. This does not seem to be a shape that's easy to fix with projector pitch, tilt, yaw. I'm wondering if the frame is just not perfectly square. It's hard to know as it must be slight. Maybe I didn't align it perfectly, tighten it well enough, or it shifted moving it on and off wall a couple times? Could this be an explanation for what I'm seeing? Attached is an exaggerated example of the shape I mean if you don't remember your geometry. Thanks.


----------



## nathan_h

You can check the frame for square by measuring from corner to corner (diagonal) with a tape measure and comparing that with the other corner to corner measurement. I don't know the official tolerances, but to see a visual anomaly like that those two measurements would need to be significantly different.


----------



## confinoj

nathan_h said:


> You can check the frame for square by measuring from corner to corner (diagonal) with a tape measure and comparing that with the other corner to corner measurement. I don't know the official tolerances, but to see a visual anomaly like that those two measurements would need to be significantly different.


Good idea about measuring diagonals. The picture attached was just an exaggerated version of the shape I see. It's slight enough that I can easily overscan into the velvet so if the frame is skewed it is minor. That said ideally I would like to get it as square as I can. Most folks have trapezoidal geometry issues which can easily be fixed with projector adjustments but this shape is making me wonder if it's actually the frame.


----------



## thrillcat

confinoj said:


> Good idea about measuring diagonals. The picture attached was just an exaggerated version of the shape I see. It's slight enough that I can easily overscan into the velvet so if the frame is skewed it is minor. That said ideally I would like to get it as square as I can. Most folks have trapezoidal geometry issues which can easily be fixed with projector adjustments but this shape is making me wonder if it's actually the frame.


Have you checked each piece of the frame with a level? If the top/bottom are parallel, and level, the left/right should also be level at the perpendicular.


----------



## chriscmore

confinoj said:


> I'm trying to get my ceiling mounted JVC NZ7 better aligned with my Seymour Premier frame. I seem to have a slight non-rectangle parallelogram shape to my image after spending some time trying to get it perfectly square. Top and bottom are parallel and straight. Sides are parallel but slanted. This does not seem to be a shape that's easy to fix with projector pitch, tilt, yaw. I'm wondering if the frame is just not perfectly square. It's hard to know as it must be slight. Maybe I didn't align it perfectly, tighten it well enough, or it shifted moving it on and off wall a couple times? Could this be an explanation for what I'm seeing? Attached is an exaggerated example of the shape I mean if you don't remember your geometry. Thanks.


Like Nathan mentioned, measure the diagonals and see how square the screen is. We build in some ability to adjust the screen, so if you find you to need to compress one of the diagonals, loosen all the corner brackets and adjust as necessary. You could even go a little beyond square in the other direction in case there are projector geometries to counter for, but at some point the Fidelio velvet frame should be doing the rest and soaking up a little overscan.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

steve0742003 said:


> I believe I have settled on doing a 140" DIY frame using the XD material. For those that have this is the general consensus to use a black backer material as well? If so I assume black spandex would be fine to use? I saw a mention Millibel black backing that Seymour sells as well.
> 
> Thanks for any help/opinions.


I'd guess only maybe 1 out of 20 XD customers add a black backing layer. If you want to do the "IMAX reveal" trick and light up your speakers behind the screen, then stick to a single layer. If you have to go with something to block the light, I'd use something more acoustically transparent than spandex, or at least cut speaker holes out of it. Its job is simple - just block the light from splashing back - so I'd address it simply and only as needed. Hanging on the baffle wall is fine too. Location doesn't matter and there are benefits to having an airspace between the layers.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## confinoj

chriscmore said:


> Like Nathan mentioned, measure the diagonals and see how square the screen is. We build in some ability to adjust the screen, so if you find you to need to compress one of the diagonals, loosen all the corner brackets and adjust as necessary. You could even go a little beyond square in the other direction in case there are projector geometries to counter for, but at some point the Fidelio velvet frame should be doing the rest and soaking up a little overscan.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I measured outside corner to outside corner diagonally as this was easiest while still on the wall. Diagonals are off by 5/8 of an inch. This hopefully explains my issue. I’ll have to take it down and adjust.


----------



## scottyb

confinoj said:


> I'm trying to get my ceiling mounted JVC NZ7 better aligned with my Seymour Premier frame. I seem to have a slight non-rectangle parallelogram shape to my image after spending some time trying to get it perfectly square. Top and bottom are parallel and straight. Sides are parallel but slanted. This does not seem to be a shape that's easy to fix with projector pitch, tilt, yaw. I'm wondering if the frame is just not perfectly square. It's hard to know as it must be slight. Maybe I didn't align it perfectly, tighten it well enough, or it shifted moving it on and off wall a couple times? Could this be an explanation for what I'm seeing? Attached is an exaggerated example of the shape I mean if you don't remember your geometry. Thanks.


Is your projector perfectly level?
Put a “square” in each corner of the frame


----------



## confinoj

scottyb said:


> Is your projector perfectly level?
> Put a “square” in each corner of the frame


Thanks I think I already figured it out as noted above. It fits with the pattern I see as well. I would think starting with projector level is a good starting point but in the end it just needs to be square with the screen which isn’t always perfectly vertical if your walls aren’t completely flat. In our 82yr old house I don’t think a single wall, ceiling, or floor is perfectly flat/level.


----------



## chriscmore

Wanna spend $7,942, lose 12dB of your treble AND get moiré in your image? It's screens like this is why our company was started.

No wonder people hate AT screens

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## nathan_h

I like youtube channels when they do objective measurements, but any time they review something for the channel owner's personal home, that they received for free from a manufacturer, it's really just a compensated advertisement.


----------



## chriscmore

nathan_h said:


> I like youtube channels when they do objective measurements, but any time they review something for channel owner's personal home, that they received for free from a manufacturer, it's really just a compensated advertisement.


I don't understand his "video experts" that reportedly recommended that thing and he's supposedly an audiophile. I need to speak with them. 

Yet about zero of his forum members would have made that mistake. 

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## asharma

I’m looking for a 16x9 140” fixed frame screen for my JVC NZ-8…What are folks buying and with what gain? Are there masking options? Thanks


----------



## chriscmore

asharma said:


> I’m looking for a 16x9 140” fixed frame screen for my JVC NZ-8…What are folks buying and with what gain? Are there masking options? Thanks


140" image diagonal or width? What will your seating distance be? Do you want acoustically transparent? I assume your room is dark and light controlled from your ST100 background.

There is a couple motorized option in the Seymour AV line, and three in the Seymour-Screen Excellence line.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## asharma

chriscmore said:


> 140" image diagonal or width? What will your seating distance be? Do you want acoustically transparent? I assume your room is dark and light controlled from your ST100 background.
> 
> There is a couple motorized option in the Seymour AV line, and three in the Seymour-Screen Excellence line.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks…140” diagonal fixed frame…Seating distance is 11 ft…AT not required…Triple velvet batcave 100% light controlled…Also looking to understand masking options…Do you ship to Canada? Thanks again


----------



## chriscmore

asharma said:


> Thanks…140” diagonal fixed frame…Seating distance is 11 ft…AT not required…Triple velvet batcave 100% light controlled…Also looking to understand masking options…Do you ship to Canada? Thanks again


K, we have a couple options. The 120"w (137.7"d) is a standard size. The 122.0"w (140"d) is custom and priced like the 130"w. Keep in mind since every screen is custom, feel free to specify any critical dimension to the 0.1" resolution. 

We have magnetic fixed panels that attach to the Premier (3.3"w) or Metro (1.5"w) fixed frames. Or if you're after the motorized product, the Proscenium is the choice.

The screen material you'd want is the Glacier White.

For pricing, contact us to let us know which size and configuration you'd like and yes we ship to Canada.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## asharma

chriscmore said:


> K, we have a couple options. The 120"w (137.7"d) is a standard size. The 122.0"w (140"d) is custom and priced like the 130"w. Keep in mind since every screen is custom, feel free to specify any critical dimension to the 0.1" resolution.
> 
> We have magnetic fixed panels that attach to the Premier (3.3"w) or Metro (1.5"w) fixed frames. Or if you're after the motorized product, the Proscenium is the choice.
> 
> The screen material you'd want is the Glacier White.
> 
> For pricing, contact us to let us know which size and configuration you'd like and yes we ship to Canada.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks Chris, are there any gain options for Glacier White?


----------



## uscmatt99

Will chime in here to mention I love the magnetic masking panels for my Screen Excellence 140” wide 2.35:1 screen. Easy to use and very effective.


----------



## thrillcat

asharma said:


> Thanks Kris, are there any gain options for Glacier White?


If you check the overview page on their website, it shows the gain of all the materials. There are no gain options for Glacier White (or any materials - each gain has it's own product name).






Seymour AV | Center Stage screens


Seymour AV is the premier manufacturer of acoustically transparent home theater projection screens in the world, maintaining the highest standards in projection screen innovation, design and craftsmanship




seymourav.com


----------



## asharma

thrillcat said:


> If you check the overview page on their website, it shows the gain of all the materials. There are no gain options for Glacier White (or any materials - each gain has it's own product name).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seymour AV | Center Stage screens
> 
> 
> Seymour AV is the premier manufacturer of acoustically transparent home theater projection screens in the world, maintaining the highest standards in projection screen innovation, design and craftsmanship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seymourav.com


Ok, looks to me like Glacier White PS is 1.3 gain…


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

asharma said:


> Ok, looks to me like Glacier White PS is 1.3 gain…


Yes it is and I love mine. Best decision I made was to upgrade my screen


----------



## asharma

Luis Gabriel Gerena said:


> Yes it is and I love mine. Best decision I made was to upgrade my screen


Wholly crap, that’s a large screen for a 540 even with a lens…Do you know how many nits you are getting with and without the lens?


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

asharma said:


> Wholly crap, that’s a large screen for a 540 even with a lens…Do you know how many nits you are getting with and without the lens?


I get about 65nits. Pitch black room with triple velvet ceiling, walls and all black carpet so I can get away with 64 or even less really and still enjoy my image and deeper blacks. 
Normally anything above 50nits I can enjoy just fine in this room.
Without the lens I think I was getting about 46nits. Keep in mind that at least for me, my first copy of the 480 Panamorph was not very good..didn't get me much boost of light and never was able to deliver a sharp image.
I found another for a good price and decided to try again and this one was much better so not sure if it's a copy to copy variance like with camera lenses or just because of the age of the 480 units.


----------



## drona

Hi. I need a ceiling mountable, retractable AT screen. Research suggests not too many options. SeymourAV is one of the few, and the products/quality seem very good. I know next to nothing about projector screens, and have several questions:

1. I have 8' ceilings. How close to the ground will the screen be when fully opened? Will the unused parts of the screen (i.e. area near the ceiling or floor) have black masking?
2. The recommended products would be under the "Retractable Electric" category, correct? What's the difference between these and Proscenium (which are out of my price range)?
3. For my room, the screen will drop down in front of speakers/AVR/media console/etc, a couple ft from the wall. Do I need to be concerned about potential light sources or reflections from this area showing up on the screen? Anything else I need to be concerned with?
4. I'll be sitting 10-12' away and don't like overly large screens (i.e. I sit towards the back in movie theaters). Is 120" right for me? This will be on a 12ft wall in a 12' x 17' room. 
5. Not sure what accessories I will need. Some sort of trigger that automatically pulls down the screen when the projector turns on would be nice, along with a wall switch or remote I guess. What are the typical recommended options?
6. Not sure which to choose between 16:9 or 2.35:1. This would mostly be for movies and TV shows (blu-ray + streaming) with a little gaming. 

Thanks.


----------



## nathan_h

drona said:


> Hi. I need a ceiling mountable, retractable AT screen. Research suggests not too many options. SeymourAV is one of the few, and the products/quality seem very good. I know next to nothing about projector screens, and have several questions:
> 
> 1. I have 8' ceilings. How close to the ground will the screen be when fully opened? Will the unused parts of the screen (i.e. area near the ceiling or floor) have black masking?
> 2. The recommended products would be under the "Retractable Electric" category, correct? What's the difference between these and Proscenium (which are out of my price range)?
> 3. For my room, the screen will drop down in front of speakers/AVR/media console/etc, a couple ft from the wall. Do I need to be concerned about potential light sources or reflections from this area showing up on the screen? Anything else I need to be concerned with?
> 4. I'll be sitting 10-12' away and don't like overly large screens (i.e. I sit towards the back in movie theaters). Is 120" right for me? This will be on a 12ft wall in a 12' x 17' room.
> 5. Not sure what accessories I will need. Some sort of trigger that automatically pulls down the screen when the projector turns on would be nice, along with a wall switch or remote I guess. What are the typical recommended options?
> 6. Not sure which to choose between 16:9 or 2.35:1. This would mostly be for movies and TV shows (blu-ray + streaming) with a little gaming.
> 
> Thanks.


1. You can request/specify this with Seymour (within reason).
2. Proscenium, AFAIK, is a fixed frame setup, not a drop down screen.
3. Yes, anything back there that is not black will light up and be visible through the screen. (I don't know if they make a black backing for the drop down AT screens but if they do, that can mitigate it.)
4. Only you can say. But based on your statement that you don't like a large screen, and your seating distance, I would guess that 120" diagonal is a good size for you for a 16x9 screen.
5. Seymour can set you up with several options and they are introducing new ones all the time. 
6. If you don't already know the answer to this question for yourself and your projector and your viewing habits then the answer is 16:9 almost all the time.


----------



## drona

Hey thanks a lot for the quick reply. Really appreciate it. Regarding the light sources/reflections behind the AT screen, I see that the fabric layer for their retractable screens is described as "Double layer, full black backing." Hopefully that prevents all potential issues. I will discuss further in detail with them.


----------



## noah katz

drona said:


> 6. Not sure which to choose between 16:9 or 2.35:1.


Many of us find splitting the difference with 2.05:1 to be the perfect compromise, assuming you have lens memories to make it easy to choose the appropriate zoom settings.


----------



## drona

Noted.
One more question I thought of with regards to the AT screens. Might be a stupid one...
Does the room need to be completely dark for best picture quality? Would very dimmed LED ceiling lights, or even small lamp here and there have an adverse affect on the image? Or should I pay extra heed to make sure it's pitch black (ie blackout curtains on all glass)?


----------



## scottyb

drona said:


> Noted.
> One more question I thought of with regards to the AT screens. Might be a stupid one...
> Does the room need to be completely dark for best picture quality? Would very dimmed LED ceiling lights, or even small lamp here and there have an adverse affect on the image? Or should I pay extra heed to make sure it's pitch black (ie blackout curtains on all glass)?


The darker the better, if you do have any ambient light make sure it is not directed at or near the screen. The lesser the light the better the picture.

I didn’t see, what projector will you be using?


----------



## drona

I actually have not starting looking into projectors yet. Still in the research phase at this point, so nothing has been purchased. I can mount the projector anywhere and am hoping to budget $1.5k-ish (depending on value) for it.


----------



## nathan_h

Not only are having some soft lights on in the room a drag, simply having light colored walls and ceiling is really distracting, too, in my experience. Using a Seymour screen like that is like driving a Lamborghini on a muddy dirt road, imo. YMMV.


----------



## drona

I'd be more than happy to have dark walls, but this is a living room so wife-approval is a huge factor.


----------



## nathan_h

drona said:


> I'd be more than happy to have dark walls, but this is a living room so wife-approval is a huge factor.


In that case, you might consider an ambient light rejecting screen. Unfortunately I don't know of any woven screens that are good for that.

Personally, my compromise when having to use a projection setup in a room with light colored walls was to use an ambient light rejecting solid surface (not AT) screen, and adjust my speaker positions to be outside the screen area.

I'm at nine feet and only have 2" of space between my speakers and my screen, so the Seymour *Matinee Wide MicroPerf *was not an option for me. It might be for you since you are more than 10' from the screen and since it is a larger room perhaps you can get a foot of space between screen and speaker.


----------



## drona

The only problem with that is that I require a ceiling mount retractable screen because this would need to be installed away from the wall due to an unlucky window placement (see attachment of my original plan). Doesn't look like there are different screen material options for the electric one.


----------



## nathan_h

Then I would definitely go with a Matinee Wide MicroPerf option in their drop down screens... or just place the speakers lower in which case you don't need to go for the perf version. But that's just me. There are other options about there, too, of course, and you mean want to figure out your projector situation in tandem with the screen. The two need to be taken as a unit in terms of getting a good combination of quality.


----------



## drona

Ok I will definitely strongly consider that. AT with non-ideal wall colors vs ALR (non-AT) with speakers off-screen. I was kind of hoping I could have the speakers behind the screen for a better sound effect. I also assume that whatever decision is made will determine what kind of projector I would buy.

Happy new year.


----------



## chriscmore

In the retractable format, we're currently only doing our Center Stage line of white, woven acoustically transparent screen materials. The secondary black backing layer is standard and will mitigate most of the room splash-back behind the screen, and cancel minor light washing or secondary reflections like from flat panels. It's not opaque enough to block window light or any direct firing LEDs behind the screen. Given your seating distance, I'd recommend the Center Stage UF material.

While you don't need to be in a batcave, any darkening of color and light control will greatly help the picture. Prioritize darker and matte paint or fabrics on every wall except the screen wall. That's the wall you can paint Lamborghini Yellow if you like and it won't affect the screen. On the other surfaces, even getting into middle, neutral tones will help. For lighting, you can sneak in a surprising amount if you focus spot lighting where you need it, and try to eliminate flood lighting that hits the screen. I've seen 28 spotlights on individual seats with no visible light contamination on the screen.

The Matinee Wide Microperf material will be available in a retractable this year, but it won't have a secondary black backing layer. Unless your room is seriously compromised, I don't think its ALR advantage will net out a better result for you.

Please contact the factory and we can iron out the details.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## nathan_h

chriscmore said:


> Unless your room is seriously compromised, I don't think its ALR advantage will net out a better result for you.


I am intrigued by this statement.

By "seriously compromised" do you mean white walls/ceiling, or while walls/ceiling plus some lights on in the room?

By "net out a better result" do you mean there is an acoustic advantage to the woven screens, and perhaps a visual advantage (versus the ALR screen) too?

My question is not entirely academic. I've got a compromised room and am thinking about how I can do an acoustically transparent screen but not lose the advantages of ALR (but may just darken the room to avoid having to make that choice).

This is how it started:










I threw a woven AT screen in there, and while it looked okay, as you know, the light walls and ceiling destroyed mixed content scene contrast (often referred to as ANSI contrast).










So I experimented with an ALR screen sample, which really mitigated how much light from the screen bounced onto the walls and ceiling (and therefor back onto the screen, washing out the image):










But, ON AXIS, the ALR material didn't look too bad compared with the neutral white traditional lambertian type screen (ALR sample in on the face):










But it's a small room. The projector is 12' lens to screen, I sit 9' from the screen, and if I am using speakers behind the screen, they are within 4" of the screen......and ALR was (at best) available in perf if available that way at all (ie, I needed a drop down screen).

So I have to move the speakers and go with a solid ALR screen for the time being.










But I've now got some slim speakers that can go behind a screen, and I am thinking I'll build a frame that keeps the screen off the wall a few inches.....and I'd like to be able to consider an ALR AT screen.......but still suspect the compromises are too great, and room darkening is the real solution.


----------



## aaron186

Does anyone know how far from the wall the Seymour Premier frame puts the screen material? I ordered a 150 in AT screen and I’m using in wall speakers behind the screen. I’m planning on building out the top and bottom of the frame. I’m wondering if a 2x4 will be enough?


----------



## chriscmore

nathan_h said:


> I am intrigued by this statement.
> 
> By "seriously compromised" do you mean white walls/ceiling, or while walls/ceiling plus some lights on in the room?
> 
> By "net out a better result" do you mean there is an acoustic advantage to the woven screens, and perhaps a visual advantage (versus the ALR screen) too?
> 
> My question is not entirely academic. I've got a compromised room and am thinking about how I can do an acoustically transparent screen but not lose the advantages of ALR (but may just darken the room to avoid having to make that choice).
> 
> This is how it started:
> 
> View attachment 3381256
> 
> 
> I threw a woven AT screen in there, and while it looked okay, as you know, the light walls and ceiling destroyed mixed content scene contrast (often referred to as ANSI contrast).
> 
> View attachment 3381257
> 
> 
> So I experimented with an ALR screen sample, which really mitigated how much light from the screen bounced onto the walls and ceiling (and therefor back onto the screen, washing out the image):
> 
> View attachment 3381258
> 
> 
> But, ON AXIS, the ALR material didn't look too bad compared with the neutral white traditional lambertian type screen (ALR sample in on the face):
> 
> View attachment 3381259
> 
> 
> But it's a small room. The projector is 12' lens to screen, I sit 9' from the screen, and if I am using speakers behind the screen, they are within 4" of the screen......and ALR was (at best) available in perf if available that way at all (ie, I needed a drop down screen).
> 
> So I have to move the speakers and go with a solid ALR screen for the time being.
> 
> View attachment 3381261
> 
> 
> But I've now got some slim speakers that can go behind a screen, and I am thinking I'll build a frame that keeps the screen off the wall a few inches.....and I'd like to be able to consider an ALR AT screen.......but still suspect the compromises are too great, and room darkening is the real solution.


People have different sensitivities to the look of ambient light rejection technology in screens. In an ideal room, a neutral white is the reference choice. As room compromises add up, such as light colored surfaces or light sources, a neutral white screen quickly becomes washed out. The ALR features restore that contrast, but will impart a look to the image, which is why they are not used in reference situations. How much this amped-up look to the image is a tradeoff depends on the person and of course how competently the material was designed. I've had trade-show floor ALR screens be both described as "unwatchable" (usually the white screen folks like me) and "best image I've ever seen." I can't really rationalize the spread of opinion.

In your early pictures, definitely a giant flat panel, or an aggressive ALR screen is warranted. A step up could be a perforated ALR screen so that you could get your center perfectly on axis with the L/R, but you've got a such an otherwise-well matched LCR set and one row of seating, that I'd probably not sign up for the tradeoffs of a perfed screen. Your final picture looks like a nice system.

Woven screens almost always acoustically outperform perforated. The worst woven screens I've measured, maybe -6dB, are better than most perforated which can lose up to -15dB (SI).

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## chriscmore

aaron186 said:


> Does anyone know how far from the wall the Seymour Premier frame puts the screen material? I ordered a 150 in AT screen and I’m using in wall speakers behind the screen. I’m planning on building out the top and bottom of the frame. I’m wondering if a 2x4 will be enough?


About a half inch. The Center Stage materials are designed to be able to hang right over in-walls, which will easily have the minimum 1" clearance as specified. If you can increase this air-space, you'll improve on the measurements but the effects are narrow bandwidth and high frequency. In other words, your meter will be happier, but the improvements may not be audible. It's academically, directionally correct.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## nathan_h

Enough for what? For the audio to be unimpeded? If you went with XD


chriscmore said:


> People have different sensitivities to the look of ambient light rejection technology in screens. In an ideal room, a neutral white is the reference choice. As room compromises add up, such as light colored surfaces or light sources, a neutral white screen quickly becomes washed out. The ALR features restore that contrast, but will impart a look to the image, which is why they are not used in reference situations. How much this amped-up look to the image is a tradeoff depends on the person and of course how competently the material was designed. I've had trade-show floor ALR screens be both described as "unwatchable" (usually the white screen folks like me) and "best image I've ever seen." I can't really rationalize the spread of opinion.
> 
> In your early pictures, definitely a giant flat panel, or an aggressive ALR screen is warranted. A step up could be a perforated ALR screen so that you could get your center perfectly on axis with the L/R, but you've got a such an otherwise-well matched LCR set and one row of seating, that I'd probably not sign up for the tradeoffs of a perfed screen. Your final picture looks like a nice system.
> 
> Woven screens almost always acoustically outperform perforated. The worst woven screens I've measured, maybe -6dB, are better than most perforated which can lose up to -15dB (SI).
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Thanks for the walk through of the rationale and trade offs. 

Really seems like I should be investing in some dark brown paint and a little marriage counseling!


----------



## chriscmore

nathan_h said:


> Enough for what? For the audio to be unimpeded? If you went with XD
> 
> 
> Thanks for the walk through of the rationale and trade offs.
> 
> Really seems like I should be investing in some dark brown paint and a little marriage counseling!


You're getting closer with the black acoustic wall panels. Did you notice an improvement in contrast when you added those? A couple hundred in paint will improve your image more than a pile of projector money.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## nathan_h

chriscmore said:


> You're getting closer with the black acoustic wall panels. Did you notice an improvement in contrast when you added those? A couple hundred in paint will improve your image more than a pile of projector money.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Well, I changed the color of the panels AFTER getting an ALR screen, but even if the main thing was to reduce the distraction of screen splash on the side walls, it was worth the effort. And it likely reduced splash back onto the screen too, especially from the ceiling which is so far off axis and still glaringly white.

I agree, dark paint (actually thinking velvet on the screen wall) would let me use a proper white screen. One way or another, that's the direction this is headed, I believe.


----------



## aaron186

chriscmore said:


> About a half inch. The Center Stage materials are designed to be able to hang right over in-walls, which will easily have the minimum 1" clearance as specified. If you can increase this air-space, you'll improve on the measurements but the effects are narrow bandwidth and high frequency. In other words, your meter will be happier, but the improvements may not be audible. It's academically, directionally correct.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


So I assume you’re saying just hang it on wall as is and any change in sound is unlikely to be noticeable? I’m running ARC as well


----------



## chriscmore

aaron186 said:


> So I assume you’re saying just hang it on wall as is and any change in sound is unlikely to be noticeable? I’m running ARC as well


If you can add air space easily, it would help. You may not notice any audible improvements, so it's otherwise better to hang flush on the wall, you can do that.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## noah katz

chriscmore said:


> The ALR features restore that contrast, but will impart a look to the image, which is why they are not used in reference situations. How much this amped-up look to the image...


What do you mean by amped up - brighter?

Have you done a brightness-matched comparison between an ALR and normal screen?

I don't see how any passive screen could alter the image in a nonlinear fashion.


----------



## chriscmore

noah katz said:


> What do you mean by amped up - brighter?
> 
> Have you done a brightness-matched comparison between an ALR and normal screen?
> 
> I don't see how any passive screen could alter the image in a nonlinear fashion.


These get into qualitative attributes that are perhaps more effectively covered in a YouTube video than forum discussion. I'll add it to my list of topics to cover. The differences center on how the eye perceives color and brightness differently between a Lambertian surface and reflectors, or gain elements in an ambient light rejection type screen. "White" versus "light" can look different, even at the same luminosity. It's almost an analog versus digital, film versus flat panel type discussion.

Cheers,
Chris


----------

